A blind test amongst the GCN presenters would have been awesome here. Dan said he didn't feel a difference. Simon said he did feel a minor difference. It would be interesting to see if the presenters could tell the difference if given two bikes and asked to pick out the carbon one (without doing the tap test of course).
This test isn't an apples for apples test. Obviously the carbon bike was faster. It is yellow. Science has proven that yellow bikes are always faster, followed by black.
I bought a new CF frame because it was on offer from a pro continental team at the end of the season. it's nothing to do with status symbol, I liked the colour scheme, it was reasonably light and had some great reviews that it was an excellent ride. I ride steel (50s/90s frames)Titanium (90s), alu (2000s) part alu/CF (2000s) and now two CF bikes also. I honestly think your way of thinking is incorrect, it's about what the market wants to promote/sell and a pricepoint people think they can afford. Right now cheap CF frames/bikes are affordable to the masses, it's as simple as that.
I'm riding a mid-90s Cannondale aluminum frame. I did a ride with some college students, 400 miles, and swapped out to a carbon fiber Trek occasionally. I honestly couldn't feel any difference, at least not enough to justify spending $1000+ to upgrade. Saving a few ounces for a pleasure rider by spending a lot of coin doesn't make sense to this tightwad scotsman , lol.
I forgot which one was carbon half way through and then when they weighed it My memory was refreshed. All along I was looking at the black going " oh yeh that carbon looks so much more composed and smooth" PLACEBO much.
When I made the switch over from aluminium to carbon I felt so much smoother on my new bike, not sure how much faster but it has definitely been a lot more comfortable and forgiving on the roads
I hav the 2016 Cannondale Synapse 105 Disc in aluminum alloy. I adore it. The frame is responsive, it is lightweight by my standards as I am not about those 25 seconds, I am about how far I can go comfortably. As I like to say, "Miles not Metals". I will never be a racer, I will never be as skilled as Peter Sagan (or even his left pinky), but I know that I enjoy the hell out of riding my bike. I did 60.5 miles (97k) today and I am as fresh as a flower. The price difference allowed me to setup the right pedals, the right saddle, lights and safety equipment (saddle bag) and buy my wife some nice dinners. If I were to changed anything about my bike it would be to upgrade the groupset, not change the frame.
My wife rides the identical bike 900 miles a week and loves it. We got it on sale for $1549 put the difference to a power meter which was cheaper because the cranks were not Ultegra.
@@ConorPorter Your wife rides 900 miles per week!? That is a lot more than the pro ladies do, and even more than the male pros ride weekly. Does she ride six hours per day on average?
+Xehanort11 Hahaha meant to say "a month" she commutes to and from work 16 miles away and does longer rides on the weekend. Anyway we are having a hard time finding a carbon bike she likes and may just go to a CAAD12 as an upgrade.
A good thing to keep in mind if you're on the fence: Carbon's biggest advantage is that it's easier from an engineering perspective to manipulate to get the performance characteristics you want, which is why the bike industry has embraced it. But the skill of the engineer and the quality of the manufacturer still make a bigger difference. A well designed alu bike will beat a bad carbon bike every time. Bottom line: test different brands and styles, find what you like, be open to suggestion from your local bike shop (work with a local bike shop), but ultimately trust your gut. What matters is that the bike does what you want; the rest is only important if you want it to be.
I think another very important factor is frame size. As someone who generally rides XL or XXL bikes, it’s a much bigger deal. Most manufacturers don’t beef up or thicken the aluminum tubing for larger frames so a smaller frame is actually stronger than its larger brother. This means that the differences are bigger when you compare larger sized frames. I say this as someone who has recently cracked his aluminum XL MTB frame without crashing. Yes, that’s right, the top tube cracked at 1k miles and less than 2 years of use on my 2019 Marin bike.
Budget was a factor for me so I chose aluminum with better components. I have weight to lose anyway so it would have been silly for me to spend extra money for such a small difference.
Frame is more important than components. Modern groupsets are so good you're not really losing anything other than weight and aesthetics with lower-tier groupsets.
For a newbie like me, i buy the aluminium bike and invest the rest of the money in shorts, shoes, a helmet, drinking bottle, socks. I don't think i have an advantage on a carbon bike.
@@yongling9825 You statement is nothing but common sense. I have both aluminum and carbon fiber bicycles, there is a difference in the ride but neither is faster than the other, it's all in the motor propelling it. My favorite bike is my aluminum Specialized Allez.
@@yongling9825 that is true carbon is stronger but not as resiliant which means it can crack if takes the right impact. Same bridges are made to have some flex.
I found the difference wasn't mainly in the weight when I got my first carbon bike though. It was the stiffness and responsiveness that was the main benefit. And for that reason alone it's worth the extra. Still keep my ally for winter though.
I agree with the presenters. I'd take the higher specced alu bike over a lower spec carbon bike assuming I'm spending to a set budget. Too many factors play a part in skewing any comparisons made on the road. You also have to factor in the psychological influence owning the more desirable/expensive frame would undeniably have. Interesting topic.
Same here, I'm riding on the last Gen steal bikes when Aluminium got popular, spec'd with only Campagnolo, cinelli and Mavic and what should I say it rides awesome.
Human beings are extremely adaptable. Carbon versus aluminium is not a issue in this regard, generally . Preference, well that is affected by probably an infinite amount of environmental factors probably. As the saying goes ' what you believe is what you'll see.' or feel in this case. I ride both. Had an aluminium frame first then got carbon and it does seem more comfortable. However before the carbon frame I never complained about the aluminium frame being uncomfortable! Question is do I believe my carbon frame is more comfortable because that is what I read, learned and was told before buying it. Conformation bias? After I while I just stopped thinking about and take the lighter bike on events or extremely long rides and ride the heavier bike for training no matter the distance.
It's not as green unfortunately. Still, it's far better than having a car I guess www.bikeradar.com/features/the-not-so-green-bike-carbon-fibers-carbon-footprint/
The best advice I took when buying my first road bike was to spend less and buy an alloy frame, and buy a power meter with the saved cash. A carbon frame won't make you fitter but a power meter will if used correctly.
given that aluminium is the internationally recognised correct name as stated by the international body that governs the periodic table of the elements, you're wrong. 'Aluminum' is american, i.e. incorrect.
A medium to high end aluminum frame-set is better and often cheaper than a low-end CF frameset. It's more a question of best value for how much you spend. There's no universal answer. Also, the video mentions that tires, saddle and so forth make the most difference and that is dead on. In terms of "feel" between aluminum and CF it's more subjective. It might resonate differently and you might have positive or negative reactions do those differences but that is just navel-gazing. Get the best frame that you can afford based on stiffness, fit and weight. And then build it up and tune it by changing tires, saddle, and maybe seatpost and handlebars if you still feel you need to tweak it. The "factually faster" frame is probably bullshit because testing methods to answer such questions are not repeatable for human-driven machines.
This is actually so important for some people. One of my carbon bikes got some hairline cracks (not even from crashes), and I found myself stressing about the frame’s structural integrity all the time. I eventually got put it on the trainer and go a high end aluminum bike for training, that extra 500g might make me 1% slower on climbs but I can finally have some peace of mind.
Managed to get the SL6 Emonda for £1400! upgraded from a trek 1.1, what an upgrade it is! Carbon feels so much better and its nice having such a light bike while living in the peak district! And beat my hill climb time from 4:09 to 3:12!
Another carbon over alloy buying decision is that for most people, a bike is an important one time purchase. Bringing home an alloy model while knowing the carbon is a little better will always be on the back of their mind. Having sold bikes for a while at the LBS, this is often the case. Then there's always the case of people with beer guts riding on wheels that cost double what my bike is worth. To each their own :)
I had a carbon frame that gave me the confidence to lean my bike at steeper angles than my current aluminium frame that i have on the same setup ,after i broke the carbon one.
I had this exact decision to make when I got my bike. In the end I went for an canyon ultimate Al which meant I could get the higher level groupset and upgraded handlebars for the same price as the lower groupset with carbon frame. I've also had a small fall since then and who's to say my carbon frame would of survived?
I was going to say the same thing. My preference is always a better framed bike which you can improve as and when things need replacing, or when cash is available. If you start with a cheaper frame you'll always have that cheaper frame.
2 things. I would have liked to see a segment addressing the durability of the two materials. Also, the comfort can also be dictated by the saddle you're riding on.
I've just bought my first carbon framed bike, it's the Ribble Endurance SL e & it weighs less than my previous non electric bike. I absolutely love the vibration dampening of the frame & forks.
Jeff K I know, I've ridden some carbon bikes and they are not worth the 1000 euro difference, yes they are stiffer etc. But not worth the price, I agree with you, my previous bike was from the 90s with downtube shifting, had as much fun as with my new bike
I'd love to see them do some comparisons between some chinese brands of carbon frames and their usual preposterously expensive brands. Same groupset, just the frames are different. I'm curious if there is a real difference in stiffness between the carbon fiber quality, weave and layer count, or if that necessarily matters.
That’s one of the best videos ever from you ! Some time ago I was considering getting a TT frame from Cyfac. The difference in price between carbon and aluminium is quite significant but I’m now convinced that it’s not worth it. I’m still on the fence about getting that bike because I feel for the most part it’s down to my legs more than the frame itself. For now I’ll probably get satisfied with just clip-on aerobars, but it’s nice to get good information about what you really get out of a frame material. Cheers guys, keep up with the great content !
Unfortunately not all aluminum frames are as good as the Emonda ALR. Not every company has invested in aluminum as much in recent years as Cannondale, Specialized, and Trek have meaning there are some aluminum bikes that fall well short of their carbon brothers.
a caad 12 105 would perform better than any carbon bike at its price point in my opinion (currently £1250 new at Evans cycles in the UK), and pretty close to any carbon bike under £3000.
Not just in looks. Also in feel, toughness and resale value. A 2010 carbon bike is like a 2010 smartphone. A steel bike has a timeless beauty and relevance
Just the price delta between those two bikes, is what I paid for my entire Al-frame bike just over 20 years ago. It has curved seat stays and feels just as comfortable as my steel bikes. I think good design can generally overcome most material limitations.
When I got my carbon bike the first thing I noticed was how smooth and comfortable it was compared to my aluminium bike which has larger tires and more upright sitting position. I think it depends on where you ride it. If you ride it on good and smooth roads the comfort difference might not be that much but on especially old tarmac the carbon bike just eats up all the vibrations.
You also have to factor in there's a big difference between modern aluminum frame technology and older aluminum. Those ALR's ride beautifully smooth while you'll be vibrated to death on an old oversize tubed Klein or Cannodale (early 90's)
it more depend on design than the material itself. newer Canondale for example, make Aluminium quite comfortable with SAVE stays. Very noticeable compare to Harsh but responsive riding of Specialized Allez
Thanks for comparison! Great Video! I was always wondering what people really think about both Aluminum and Carbon fiber bikes. I have a Trek Aluminum road bike partially made with carbon fiber, the weight is 20 pounds (9 kg), even I wanna buy a fully carbon fiber bike for status and look, I am still super happy with my aluminum bike and would never sell it.
I went from a cervelo s3 to a cannondale caad12.... noticed a difference immediately but I think the aerodynamic design of the s3 helped more than any weight saving.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. One remark on Looks, I find the new MTB and speed frames way too "High-tech"/Industrial, specially when they got hollow sections. Would love seeing a fixed gear look revived in a carbon frame, with gears and brakes of course, but as neat as possible.
and the fat dude is smiling as u past him because he is thinking which hot model is gonna be in his ferrari that night for a drive before taking her home to his mansion. fat lad doesnt care about u.
And here I am with a 2008 Trek Alpha 1.9, with a self-assembled 1x10 groupset made out of parts from Tiagra, Sora, Deore, SLX, Ultegra, Tektro and Wolf Tooth...... All those different groupsets/brands in one single homemade groupset. Is that a bodge or a hack? :,D
+Jeff K Works surprisingly well, I can use my bike as a road bike, and also as a cross bike :D Don't have any issues with chain slap/ dropping chains. And it's super quiet
Most mid-high end aluminum bikes have carbon forks these days. The carbon fork offers weight savings plus smoother ride. Not sure if the aluminum bike tested here had a carbon fork, but it is something that they should have discussed.
I was riding a custom steel bike and high end titanium bike as all of my biking buddies bought carbon bikes and I would always say that carbon was no better until I bought my carbon bike. I instantly loved carbon. It just felt better overall. My custom steel bike is still my most comfortable ride and while my ti bike is still great it doesn't get much use now.
I'd be more concerned about longevity in terms of Carbon frames not lasting as long, being more prone to damage, not as easy to repair. Cannondale produce some very high quality,high performance aluminium bikes (Super 6). High vis yellow frame a winner. Take aluminium, spend difference on dearer components.
Thank you gentlemen, you just saved me a few thousand dollars. Now I know that having carbon over aluminum is relatively pointless for my application. Good video.
Now take the 10th place rider and put him on the 178th place bike and he probably still finishes in the top 10 or somewhere around there. When bikes are that closely matched, it always comes down to the rider and skill.
He said 25 seconds over 30km not 2.5km! On a 30km segment those 400 grams would have to somehow save the guy in 178th well over 5 minutes to get into the to 10. #maths
I find that most cyclist take pride in how much they are able to spend on their bike. I've become solidly just the opposite. It's a humble sorta pride.
I'm with you. I had a bike snob tell me if I was going to be serious rider, I needed to "upgrade" from my Cannondale aluminum bike to a proper carbon frame bike. I spent 180 bucks for my '95 Cannondale, and I have done lots of rides with riders on carbon fiber "modern" bikes...and we all finished at the time time. I love to brag how little I spent for mine. I suppose that makes me a little bit of a twit, but it's all in fun...
It is a good thing to have a nice and high-end thing. Some people DO tend to brag about it just a little too much, though... I'm on a verge of buying a new bike and the latest Tiagra 2x10 is the highest I'm gonna go with it. With time I'll upgrade the worn off parts with old Dura Ace components, should they be compatible. The thing I value the most in bike parts is longevity. And for me Dura Ace is like the most durable part out there. And yes, I brag about it;-)
I take pride in riding past people with expensive bikes :P And i also enjoy my rather low end aluminium frame that i've upgraded the groupset with. Primarily because it looks nice :D
I loved my Lemond 853 frame bought in 2000, rode it until this year because it I thought it felt so good, sadly no comparison with modern frames which are much better it loathes me to admit...
I still have buyers remorse from 2012 buying my T700 Carbon frame. (Giant Defy Advanced 3 with 105 group set) for £1500. Wished I'd gone for a similarly speced alluminium one off of Ebay. Can't leave it anywhere in town, throw a D-Lock on it, you worry how it is stored. It's sexy, bike of the year, the red and black number gets compliments and extended looks at the club but I'd still swap it (+ a little renumeration - the hard part because everyone wants a deal LOL) for alluminium for the above reasons. Toooo much of a luxury for me. If you really want to loose the grams why go for less than a SL T-600 carbon anyway.
As far as the better componentry; how much does that 'scale'? Meaning, I'd definitely prefer an aluminum Shimano 105 bike to a Carbon Sora/Tiagara bike (if such a thing even existed; I sure hope not). But I might not really reap the benefits of a Dura Ace groupset on an aluminum frameset; and might be happy with an Ultegra 6800 Carbon bike instead (which is, incidentally, what I ride). As you make your way up the price range, it seems the differences between higher tiers diminish. I think most folks would agree Ultegra is a bigger step up from 105, than Dura Ace is from Ultegra (or maybe you wouldn't agree?). What say you, GCN? Is the "Go for better components over a carbon frame" always true; or is there a point when you're already using upper-tier componentry, like Ultegra, that the upgrade to Carbon might be worth more than the upgrade to the top-of-the-line (like Dura Ace?) #TorqueBack
There are plenty of carbon bikes with lower end group sets on them. And you have to consider that all carbon frames are not the same. With quality brands, the properties of the carbon frame will be designed in based on the purpose of the bike. With cheaper brands, they may just go off of a chart and pick the type of carbon layup they hope will work (think Ebay Chinese carbon fiber frames).
I had a choice between a CAAD10 /w Ultegra and a SuperSixEvo (non Hi-Mod) w/ 105, all other components being equal and the price between the two were exactly the same. I chose the CAAD10 for 2 reasons, better groupset and also the frame allows for Di2 routing if I ever want to upgrade - the non Hi-Mod Evo frames at the time didn't have the internal routing for Di2. No regrets, it's a fantastic frame.
They propagate this weight and carbon crap. Unless you are the .00000000001% of the human population on the TOUR...you don't need or require any of this stuff. Now, I'd say the "LOOKS" category is the MOST important part. (I'm not being sarcastic) Amateur riders don't need any of this stuff, as aforementioned, and hence the ONLY thing is the looks. For you, for your friends and for others. Less weight and better components just gets your workout over with faster and provides a lesser workout as well. More weight, more friction...etc..etc...better workout. They should do a 7 Kilo bike versus a 10 Kilo bike and over the same distance and MEASURE THE CALORIES BURNED! My carbon bikes are for sheer superficial means. In other words, set up for what I think looks NIIIIIIIIICE! I don't care about the weight or the components as long as they work well and provide me with durability. As mentioned all the time...Tubeless wheels, chains that give you 2 to 5 w more power over the 1st 200 kilometers?, power meters? Carbon anything... ALL for PAID TOUR RIDERS AND THEIR STAFF OF 100s and the profit of companies and sponsors. I'd like to see a video on the BEST bike for the ride 50-200 kilometers amateur rider. As you notice the pros use a bike they can beat the SHIT out of during training and practice. I don't want a bike designed to be the fastest for One stage of the Tour. (that usually means it's as uncomfortable as all hell!) Like the S3 he's owned for years is an example of a bike for everyday use. Wait, not really. They ride much more than any amatuers, ride in prefect cm road conditions, do this for a living, are former pro riders aamnd can get the best equipment. They should budget them and have to ride a bike the average consumer would. I'd like to see the difference in calories burnt over the sane distance with lesser components and a heavier bike. NOT TIME...I don't need to save 53 seconds over a 100 kilometer ride but, I do want a better workout whilst being able to cover said distance.
I've got a carbon bike with sora (I am only 14 so I don't need ulterior or anything) but i know there are a lot of companies doing this with their lower end carbon bikes😄
Nice test - thanks! For me, durability is the most important category ... My carbon frame has survived more than 55000km and well over a 100 races. However, it has been collecting stone chips like nothing else. So, for my cyclocross/ gravel bike I went for aluminium frame ... and no chips thanks to the anodised surface!
My aluminum CAAD10 was slightly faster than my current carbon Trek Madone. And guess what...Marco Pantani still has some if the fastest recorded speeds up Alp D'Huez on that old Bianchi aluminum frame. fyi- just tested the new CAAD12. Yup, it's more comfy then even my carbon Madone.
Right here with you ! Still riding my 80 miyata on steel. How much better really would I feel riding the new material? Feels like splitting hairs more than a huge jump. That being said, I think these guys are right about the importance of good components. That’s probably where most of the difference is
The black alloy bike looked the nicest. I have just retired my 2004 alloy Colnago Lux Dream , it has been a great bike equiped with Campag record kit, it has served me well, but recently, on descents over 50MPH, it has started to do tank slappers, and not wanting to end up on the tarmac, it is now on the wall of my garage.
I purchased a carbon bike with lower end components. But over the past 2 years, I've upgraded the components and wheels. I'm very happy with the route I've taken and it will probably live in it's current configuration for a while. Now I just need to update my other bikes...
Could you guys make a difference video of Road bike vs MTB for road use? So I can see if the added speed would be worth it, compared to bot being able to ride in the forrest. :)
Thanks for doing this comparison some interesting information here, Just thought I'd share some advice offered to me 4yrs ago when I first got into cycling the recommendation was that give aluminium a go for a couple of reasons firstly the bikes are cheaper and if the desire to ride fails you haven't outlayed a lot of money on a bike and not riding it,the second piece of advice was aluminium tends to be a little more resistant to problems if crashed, hence I bought a Trek 2.1 from 2012, and still ride it all the time
I'm at a little dilemma, I want an aero bike for around £1,300. Now i have fallen in love with the Giant Propel that comes with a great carbon frame that is largely unchanged even for the top of the range that Kittel used last year But it comes with 105 groupset. Or do i gor for a Merida for about the same price with an aluminium frame and Ultegra groupset and fulcrum wheels, i do crit racing and long distance riding and i want to keep the bike for at least 5 years.
...then go for the one with fulcrum wheels, these will last forever. You won't really see a difference between 105 and Ultegra, its just a small weight difference. Also Merida looks much nicer i think *G*
ViRuSTriNiTy I had a go on the Giant and it is glorious, it comes with its own 35mm deep wheels, also I'll wait to see what the 2017 model will be like, and the merida is.about 1.5 kg heavier :(
Propel with 105 for sure! Especially since you're saying the Merida is heavier. I've been digging the Giant Propel a lot as well.. And if you're keen on waiting to see what the 2017 looks like, wait until they're for sale and you'll likely be able to get the 2016 for even less.
I'm a big guy (6'4", 260 lbs). I rode DH for a decade, before coming back to more AM riding. I'm running a set of Oxive carbon fiber wheels. I am amazed at how strong they are. The wheelset weighs just over 1600 grams, and they are STRONG. I had a crash this summer, moving at around 15 MPH, where I stuffed the front wheel sideways into the ground, full on 90 degrees like. I took a beating. My bike took a beating (I twisted my stem 90 degrees on the steerer tube, the brake calipers on both ends of the bike had to be realigned, and my rear thru axle got twisted weird in the frame somehow). My wheels were perfect. Not a mm out of true. As a big guy, I have a history of destroying rims. My carbon rims with a season of riding have a few nicks and scratches, otherwise they are perfect.
and that's why I chose an aluminum frame with a 105 5800 R$ 5.000,00 (8,5kg) groupset instead of a carbon frame with a Claris or Sora group (8,5kg) costing R$ 10.000,00.
im seriously debating on either one, i know i save around 500-1000 with aluminum and still get nearly as good performance but i know buying the carbon fiber of course is a financial setback and if it gets stolen or broken ill be upset.
GCN should do a video on major changes to bike geometry in recent decades and why. GMBN did a similar video on geometry differences between mtb disciplines.
The first bike I bought was carbon fiber. It was expensive, but at least I won't have to upgrade any time soon. I would really suggest for new cyclists to go with the cheaper option just to make sure you enjoy the sport. Get an aluminum frame, and spend the money you save on good gear, then upgrade to a carbon fiber after you've got more dedication to cycling.
Massive difference in a crash. I came off my carbon fibre Giant recently and snapped the front forks in two, I really dont think that an aluminium frame would have suffered as much. There is also the issue of invisible damage - an alloy bike shows the damage a lot more easily. Lastly, what about lifetime - alloy frames are said to have a life of about five years but I guess most of us would have moved on to our next bike (or two) by then.
Your suggesting that an aluminum frame with a carbon fork would have had no damage to its fork? I agree regarding the lifespan! So few people keep something for more than 5 years, so lifespan is probably not an issue. With the chance of a crash always being there an aluminum frame might make more sense as a lot of frames probably won't make it to 5 years before something damages them.
Very peculiar this - I've had my crossbike for seven years, two minor offs and still a very reliable daily bike. A crossbike frame is however significantly sturdier than any roadbike.
I've got a specialized sirus bike made of premium alluminium, this machine runs so fast and smooth. It makes me think not to burn money to upgrade to carbon frame.
Chromoly is just a fancy way of saying steel that's thinner, but it's not necessarily better despite steels recent resurgence. The come back of steel is dominated by fans. Titanium is better than steel, lighter and harder to manufacture, but more expensive. It's not worth buying when aluminum dominates in price.
One of the greatest benefits of carbon frames and rims is that it can be shaped into a much more complex design. Endurance bikes such as Roubaix's and Domane's lend themselves to carbon construction. More importantly, aero frames have evolved drastically since the rise in popularity of carbon. So, carbon might not be needed for the regular rider, like me, but it would absolutely benefit a racer who needs to reduce wind resistance.
Great video guys! I was just having this convo about Mountain bikes the other day, as some of the frames are really only max 400g lighter and less on big enduro bikes, is it worth the extra 1000$ ? BTW 30km and 500m climb is your local loop, just casually do it a few times, beasts!!
I have been looking at the Trek FX3 (aluminum, 25.8lbs) and the FX6 (carbon fiber, 20.3lbs). Also $800 vs. $2100. Decision. I am carrying about 15 extra lbs right now. It would be smarter to lose the extra weight than to spend the extra $1300 to lose 5 lbs. in bike weight.
natürlich Aluminium lieber noch Stahl aber Hände weg von diesem filigranen zerbrechlichen Carbon Zeugs. Ein gutes Radel braucht 36 DTSwiss Speichen eine gute Mavic A719 Felge und eine kurzen 400mm GERADEN Lenker. 1 mal 10 XT Schaltung, XT Klickpedale (PD M8000) und alles wird GUT. Reifen ganz klar Conti 4000 S2 in 25mm. So schaut in meinen Augen ein gutes und Robustes Radel aus!
@GCN: I'm wondering something: Why didn't you guys use a Carbon-Fibre "SLR"6 bicycle? Once I found out that there's a Trek "SL"6, Trek "SLR"6, Trek "AL"6", and Trek "ALR"6, I went to the Trek.com website and talked to a Trek Customer-Service--Representative via their website's "LiveChat"-function[/feature], and confirmed that a "SLR"6 is of a better-quality carbon-fibre than a "SL"6 carbon-fibre, and that the ["SLR"-Carbon-Fibre's] equivalent would be a "ALR"6 Aluminium [road-bike]. i.e. @the "one's a SL6, and the other's a ALR6".
I've logged in more hours watching cycling videos than riding my bike.
haha same
I only ride my bike for a short commute so I would say that I spend about 10× more time watch people cycle than doing it my self
HA HA So true!
We all do
like many of us :)
My mom won't buy me the carbon graphite Trek road bike that I want. It's only like $7599 and she won't buy it. Damn it.
Whoa, that's real expensive you know, it's no surprise she won't buy it for you.
$7599? Good decision your mom made.😎😎😎
Bro, buy a Chinese carbon frame and buy the components separate. You can make one identical to that trek for around 1000 bucks USD
@@brucew.5292 the problem is to find a good and reliable carbon frame. You have any idea? Thank you.
Get a job and buy it......
A blind test amongst the GCN presenters would have been awesome here. Dan said he didn't feel a difference. Simon said he did feel a minor difference. It would be interesting to see if the presenters could tell the difference if given two bikes and asked to pick out the carbon one (without doing the tap test of course).
This test isn't an apples for apples test. Obviously the carbon bike was faster. It is yellow. Science has proven that yellow bikes are always faster, followed by black.
But what about red? Or is that cars?
I'm pretty sure red with white stripes is the quickest colour
I'm not sure about red bikes but red cars are the fastest. The white stripe adds to the speed. White stripes are like the Zipps of the car world.
+Mike Pop awesome! My bike is Red with white stripes.
Maranello Red is always fastest ;D
For most of us, carbon is a status symbol rather than a need.
I bought a new CF frame because it was on offer from a pro continental team at the end of the season. it's nothing to do with status symbol, I liked the colour scheme, it was reasonably light and had some great reviews that it was an excellent ride. I ride steel (50s/90s frames)Titanium (90s), alu (2000s) part alu/CF (2000s) and now two CF bikes also. I honestly think your way of thinking is incorrect, it's about what the market wants to promote/sell and a pricepoint people think they can afford. Right now cheap CF frames/bikes are affordable to the masses, it's as simple as that.
That's not true either. You can find better CF gear. But it's definitely not a linear return on investment.
I'm riding a mid-90s Cannondale aluminum frame. I did a ride with some college students, 400 miles, and swapped out to a carbon fiber Trek occasionally. I honestly couldn't feel any difference, at least not enough to justify spending $1000+ to upgrade. Saving a few ounces for a pleasure rider by spending a lot of coin doesn't make sense to this tightwad scotsman , lol.
yaya
PERFECT!!!!!!!!!
I forgot which one was carbon half way through and then when they weighed it My memory was refreshed. All along I was looking at the black going " oh yeh that carbon looks so much more composed and smooth" PLACEBO much.
When I made the switch over from aluminium to carbon I felt so much smoother on my new bike, not sure how much faster but it has definitely been a lot more comfortable and forgiving on the roads
I hav the 2016 Cannondale Synapse 105 Disc in aluminum alloy. I adore it. The frame is responsive, it is lightweight by my standards as I am not about those 25 seconds, I am about how far I can go comfortably. As I like to say, "Miles not Metals". I will never be a racer, I will never be as skilled as Peter Sagan (or even his left pinky), but I know that I enjoy the hell out of riding my bike. I did 60.5 miles (97k) today and I am as fresh as a flower. The price difference allowed me to setup the right pedals, the right saddle, lights and safety equipment (saddle bag) and buy my wife some nice dinners.
If I were to changed anything about my bike it would be to upgrade the groupset, not change the frame.
My wife rides the identical bike 900 miles a week and loves it. We got it on sale for $1549 put the difference to a power meter which was cheaper because the cranks were not Ultegra.
@@ConorPorter Your wife rides 900 miles per week!? That is a lot more than the pro ladies do, and even more than the male pros ride weekly. Does she ride six hours per day on average?
+Xehanort11 Hahaha meant to say "a month" she commutes to and from work 16 miles away and does longer rides on the weekend. Anyway we are having a hard time finding a carbon bike she likes and may just go to a CAAD12 as an upgrade.
No, wheels make the real upgrade
Your wife does Grandtours back to back week in week out?
A good thing to keep in mind if you're on the fence:
Carbon's biggest advantage is that it's easier from an engineering perspective to manipulate to get the performance characteristics you want, which is why the bike industry has embraced it. But the skill of the engineer and the quality of the manufacturer still make a bigger difference. A well designed alu bike will beat a bad carbon bike every time.
Bottom line: test different brands and styles, find what you like, be open to suggestion from your local bike shop (work with a local bike shop), but ultimately trust your gut. What matters is that the bike does what you want; the rest is only important if you want it to be.
I think another very important factor is frame size. As someone who generally rides XL or XXL bikes, it’s a much bigger deal. Most manufacturers don’t beef up or thicken the aluminum tubing for larger frames so a smaller frame is actually stronger than its larger brother. This means that the differences are bigger when you compare larger sized frames. I say this as someone who has recently cracked his aluminum XL MTB frame without crashing. Yes, that’s right, the top tube cracked at 1k miles and less than 2 years of use on my 2019 Marin bike.
Budget was a factor for me so I chose aluminum with better components. I have weight to lose anyway so it would have been silly for me to spend extra money for such a small difference.
Yeah in general this is correct. If they bike takes more calories to move, well, that was the whole point anyway right?
Frame is more important than components. Modern groupsets are so good you're not really losing anything other than weight and aesthetics with lower-tier groupsets.
For a newbie like me, i buy the aluminium bike and invest the rest of the money in shorts, shoes, a helmet, drinking bottle, socks. I don't think i have an advantage on a carbon bike.
Plus, AL is more impact-resistant.
@@yongling9825 You statement is nothing but common sense. I have both aluminum and carbon fiber bicycles, there is a difference in the ride but neither is faster than the other, it's all in the motor propelling it. My favorite bike is my aluminum Specialized Allez.
@@jerryavalos9610 Not every cyclist knows about this. The moment I tell them this, some will say "I thought carbon is tougher?".
@@yongling9825 that is true carbon is stronger but not as resiliant which means it can crack if takes the right impact. Same bridges are made to have some flex.
@@davidjenkins8449 Spot on.👉
£700 for 250g, save the dosh and skip a couple of burgers 😀
Buy some nicer shoes, you could save that much weigh for half the price.
Those 250g are dropped in a pre-race shit!
Yep, save it for a power meter!
I found the difference wasn't mainly in the weight when I got my first carbon bike though. It was the stiffness and responsiveness that was the main benefit. And for that reason alone it's worth the extra. Still keep my ally for winter though.
Which carbon frame vs which aluminum frame? There are aluminum frames that are stiffer and more responsive than many carbon frames.
I would get the Aluminium bike and spend the 700/800 on a powermeter.
Lucifer Morningstar yes the test proves that 22secons are nothing if you are not racer!
Cocaine and a hooker
wiseman
@@rubenmartin7759 probably exaggerated too and more from placebo effect making them go slightly faster.
I agree with the presenters. I'd take the higher specced alu bike over a lower spec carbon bike assuming I'm spending to a set budget. Too many factors play a part in skewing any comparisons made on the road. You also have to factor in the psychological influence owning the more desirable/expensive frame would undeniably have.
Interesting topic.
Christ! I'm still rolling along happily on my Reynolds 501 steel frame. Cost me £75 and I can keep up with most people I go out with.
Same here, I'm riding on the last Gen steal bikes when Aluminium got popular, spec'd with only Campagnolo, cinelli and Mavic and what should I say it rides awesome.
Human beings are extremely adaptable. Carbon versus aluminium is not a issue in this regard, generally . Preference, well that is affected by probably an infinite amount of environmental factors probably. As the saying goes ' what you believe is what you'll see.' or feel in this case.
I ride both. Had an aluminium frame first then got carbon and it does seem more comfortable. However before the carbon frame I never complained about the aluminium frame being uncomfortable!
Question is do I believe my carbon frame is more comfortable because that is what I read, learned and was told before buying it. Conformation bias?
After I while I just stopped thinking about and take the lighter bike on events or extremely long rides and ride the heavier bike for training no matter the distance.
It's not as green unfortunately. Still, it's far better than having a car I guess
www.bikeradar.com/features/the-not-so-green-bike-carbon-fibers-carbon-footprint/
The best advice I took when buying my first road bike was to spend less and buy an alloy frame, and buy a power meter with the saved cash. A carbon frame won't make you fitter but a power meter will if used correctly.
I am quite happy to have a nicer bike and no power meter.
How does aloominiyum compare with the aloominum bikes we have here in the states?
😂😂😂😂
THIS IS THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE READ ALL DAY
given that aluminium is the internationally recognised correct name as stated by the international body that governs the periodic table of the elements, you're wrong. 'Aluminum' is american, i.e. incorrect.
No, Aluminum is correct.
+astphaire well it isn't, just because America uses the incorrect name doesn't mean that it is correct
A medium to high end aluminum frame-set is better and often cheaper than a low-end CF frameset. It's more a question of best value for how much you spend. There's no universal answer.
Also, the video mentions that tires, saddle and so forth make the most difference and that is dead on. In terms of "feel" between aluminum and CF it's more subjective. It might resonate differently and you might have positive or negative reactions do those differences but that is just navel-gazing.
Get the best frame that you can afford based on stiffness, fit and weight. And then build it up and tune it by changing tires, saddle, and maybe seatpost and handlebars if you still feel you need to tweak it. The "factually faster" frame is probably bullshit because testing methods to answer such questions are not repeatable for human-driven machines.
Crash carbon, live in doubt to its structural strength. Crash aluminium should be fine. Crash steel, pick it up and ride for another 50 years.
I crashed steel. My top tube had a W in it afterwards. No more riding :).
This is actually so important for some people. One of my carbon bikes got some hairline cracks (not even from crashes), and I found myself stressing about the frame’s structural integrity all the time. I eventually got put it on the trainer and go a high end aluminum bike for training, that extra 500g might make me 1% slower on climbs but I can finally have some peace of mind.
Managed to get the SL6 Emonda for £1400! upgraded from a trek 1.1, what an upgrade it is! Carbon feels so much better and its nice having such a light bike while living in the peak district! And beat my hill climb time from 4:09 to 3:12!
Another carbon over alloy buying decision is that for most people, a bike is an important one time purchase. Bringing home an alloy model while knowing the carbon is a little better will always be on the back of their mind.
Having sold bikes for a while at the LBS, this is often the case. Then there's always the case of people with beer guts riding on wheels that cost double what my bike is worth. To each their own :)
I had a carbon frame that gave me the confidence to lean my bike at steeper angles than my current aluminium frame that i have on the same setup ,after i broke the carbon one.
I had this exact decision to make when I got my bike. In the end I went for an canyon ultimate Al which meant I could get the higher level groupset and upgraded handlebars for the same price as the lower groupset with carbon frame. I've also had a small fall since then and who's to say my carbon frame would of survived?
Hey GCN guys.
I thought the general rule of thumb was to spend more on the frame,as you can always upgrade components at a later date.
The rules in cycling change as fast as one changes underwear.
That's fine if you don't care about wasting money now on components you know you won't use later down the road. Some people don't like that thinking.
I was going to say the same thing. My preference is always a better framed bike which you can improve as and when things need replacing, or when cash is available. If you start with a cheaper frame you'll always have that cheaper frame.
Until said frame is no longer compatible with newer components lol
2 things. I would have liked to see a segment addressing the durability of the two materials. Also, the comfort can also be dictated by the saddle you're riding on.
I think they did a video on Carbon, I could be wrong but I think they said unless you damage it, its pretty much lifetime.
I've just bought my first carbon framed bike, it's the Ribble Endurance SL e & it weighs less than my previous non electric bike. I absolutely love the vibration dampening of the frame & forks.
The hydroformed aluminium has gotten really good now. They are making aero shaped tubing that looks totally carbon.
aero shaped is also stupid and pointless off a time trial bike.
@@KandiKlover I love it.
My giant has a alu frame with carbon fork, a lot of riders think it's carbon because of the toptube shape and seamless welding, loving it so far!
Yeah, I think people can have a tendency to be equipment geeks. I say get out there and have fun.
Jeff K I know, I've ridden some carbon bikes and they are not worth the 1000 euro difference, yes they are stiffer etc. But not worth the price, I agree with you, my previous bike was from the 90s with downtube shifting, had as much fun as with my new bike
I'd love to see them do some comparisons between some chinese brands of carbon frames and their usual preposterously expensive brands. Same groupset, just the frames are different. I'm curious if there is a real difference in stiffness between the carbon fiber quality, weave and layer count, or if that necessarily matters.
love how you do the dialogues from the back of a moving bike...nice work !
That’s one of the best videos ever from you ! Some time ago I was considering getting a TT frame from Cyfac. The difference in price between carbon and aluminium is quite significant but I’m now convinced that it’s not worth it. I’m still on the fence about getting that bike because I feel for the most part it’s down to my legs more than the frame itself. For now I’ll probably get satisfied with just clip-on aerobars, but it’s nice to get good information about what you really get out of a frame material. Cheers guys, keep up with the great content !
Exactly my choice, I went for the aluminium frame with the better components instead of a lower spec carbon frame with also lower spec components
I have that Yellow bike. It's an Emonda SL6. I also have an ALR 5. Both are amazing bikes
Carbon makes a huge difference, the biggest thing I noticed was how smooth the ride became. However, don't crash!
Unfortunately not all aluminum frames are as good as the Emonda ALR. Not every company has invested in aluminum as much in recent years as Cannondale, Specialized, and Trek have meaning there are some aluminum bikes that fall well short of their carbon brothers.
Wait, are you saying there are other brands? News to me 😋
a caad 12 105 would perform better than any carbon bike at its price point in my opinion (currently £1250 new at Evans cycles in the UK), and pretty close to any carbon bike under £3000.
Quality Assurance is more difficult on high end aluminum frames. It's easier to put together effective QA regimes for CF.
They are all made by giant
My preference for carbon is purely aesthetic! Those weld joints o_O !!
The new trek Emondas do a great job of reducing it
Steel wrecks carbon in looks tho
Not just in looks. Also in feel, toughness and resale value. A 2010 carbon bike is like a 2010 smartphone. A steel bike has a timeless beauty and relevance
until you ride it on a steep hill :)))
DolleHengst false, carbon has superior resale value
Just the price delta between those two bikes, is what I paid for my entire Al-frame bike just over 20 years ago. It has curved seat stays and feels just as comfortable as my steel bikes.
I think good design can generally overcome most material limitations.
When I got my carbon bike the first thing I noticed was how smooth and comfortable it was compared to my aluminium bike which has larger tires and more upright sitting position. I think it depends on where you ride it. If you ride it on good and smooth roads the comfort difference might not be that much but on especially old tarmac the carbon bike just eats up all the vibrations.
You also have to factor in there's a big difference between modern aluminum frame technology and older aluminum. Those ALR's ride beautifully smooth while you'll be vibrated to death on an old oversize tubed Klein or Cannodale (early 90's)
it more depend on design than the material itself.
newer Canondale for example, make Aluminium quite comfortable with SAVE stays. Very noticeable compare to Harsh but responsive riding of Specialized Allez
I had a $1000 year 2000 Trek aluminum bike, before my carbon bike. That old trek made you feel every little pebble right through your spine.
I used to ride on a 20+ year old steel bike and switching to an almost new bike has made a world of difference
One of the better GCN videos! Great effort in holding the variables constant.
This can't include the CAAD12 which is better than a hell of a lot of carbon bikes out there!
Not a Super Six Evo ;)
Actually, it is definitively better. Your understanding of aluminum is with the other brands.
Totally agree.
I had one myself, it was light, stiff (with Cannondales own crank) and absolutely comfy. Much better than the CAAD 13.
i have a caad9 nine, from 2009, and is better than a lot of carbon bikes
Thanks for comparison! Great Video! I was always wondering what people really think about both Aluminum and Carbon fiber bikes. I have a Trek Aluminum road bike partially made with carbon fiber, the weight is 20 pounds (9 kg), even I wanna buy a fully carbon fiber bike for status and look, I am still super happy with my aluminum bike and would never sell it.
i would go on steel frame with carbon wheels.
I have watched all the gcn vids I didn’t miss a single one and now I’m just rewatching everything and they keep making more sense
I went from a cervelo s3 to a cannondale caad12.... noticed a difference immediately but I think the aerodynamic design of the s3 helped more than any weight saving.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. One remark on Looks, I find the new MTB and speed frames way too "High-tech"/Industrial, specially when they got hollow sections. Would love seeing a fixed gear look revived in a carbon frame, with gears and brakes of course, but as neat as possible.
firstly you have to "have legs" for cycling, carbon bike for people who dont have legs is useless (:
it always makes me laugh when i pas a fat lad riding a super light carbon bike on my 27yo 12kg steel otero i bought for 250 quid lol
as useless as fat dudes in ferraris with a hot chick in the passenger seat.
and the fat dude is smiling as u past him because he is thinking which hot model is gonna be in his ferrari that night for a drive before taking her home to his mansion. fat lad doesnt care about u.
loplopbunny is that why xxl rainbow jersey over compensates so much lol
you just need to "have money" for carbon bike :D and "have legs" to put power on it
Have been waiting ages for a direct comparison between carbon and aluminium. Thank you guys.
And here I am with a 2008 Trek Alpha 1.9, with a self-assembled 1x10 groupset made out of parts from Tiagra, Sora, Deore, SLX, Ultegra, Tektro and Wolf Tooth...... All those different groupsets/brands in one single homemade groupset. Is that a bodge or a hack? :,D
depends how well it works
I have a groupset of Ultegra/Tiagra/Sora/Deore/Acera - all works fine together.
Is that so you can always be on the "big ring"? hee hee!
+Kingsoupturbo My single ring IS 52T, so technically I'm always on the big ring :p
+Jeff K Works surprisingly well, I can use my bike as a road bike, and also as a cross bike :D Don't have any issues with chain slap/ dropping chains. And it's super quiet
Most mid-high end aluminum bikes have carbon forks these days. The carbon fork offers weight savings plus smoother ride. Not sure if the aluminum bike tested here had a carbon fork, but it is something that they should have discussed.
james lemezis totally agree! Good point.
I was riding a custom steel bike and high end titanium bike as all of my biking buddies bought carbon bikes and I would always say that carbon was no better until I bought my carbon bike. I instantly loved carbon. It just felt better overall. My custom steel bike is still my most comfortable ride and while my ti bike is still great it doesn't get much use now.
Been wanting a vid like this for some time, top work.
I'd be more concerned about longevity in terms of Carbon frames not lasting as long, being more prone to damage, not as easy to repair. Cannondale produce some very high quality,high performance aluminium bikes (Super 6). High vis yellow frame a winner. Take aluminium, spend difference on dearer components.
Thank you gentlemen, you just saved me a few thousand dollars. Now I know that having carbon over aluminum is relatively pointless for my application. Good video.
25 secs the difference between 178th place and top 10 #strava
This was my first thought.
Now take your average club rider on an average club ride. How much difference would it make?
Jeff K Dans not at pro level anymore. He said the bike made 25 secs difference. Dont you want to be 25 secs faster?
Now take the 10th place rider and put him on the 178th place bike and he probably still finishes in the top 10 or somewhere around there. When bikes are that closely matched, it always comes down to the rider and skill.
He said 25 seconds over 30km not 2.5km! On a 30km segment those 400 grams would have to somehow save the guy in 178th well over 5 minutes to get into the to 10. #maths
This and the men’s health progs are great! So useful on the everyday experience- Nice!
I find that most cyclist take pride in how much they are able to spend on their bike. I've become solidly just the opposite. It's a humble sorta pride.
I'm with you. I had a bike snob tell me if I was going to be serious rider, I needed to "upgrade" from my Cannondale aluminum bike to a proper carbon frame bike. I spent 180 bucks for my '95 Cannondale, and I have done lots of rides with riders on carbon fiber "modern" bikes...and we all finished at the time time. I love to brag how little I spent for mine. I suppose that makes me a little bit of a twit, but it's all in fun...
It is a good thing to have a nice and high-end thing. Some people DO tend to brag about it just a little too much, though...
I'm on a verge of buying a new bike and the latest Tiagra 2x10 is the highest I'm gonna go with it.
With time I'll upgrade the worn off parts with old Dura Ace components, should they be compatible.
The thing I value the most in bike parts is longevity. And for me Dura Ace is like the most durable part out there.
And yes, I brag about it;-)
Caads are awesome bikes! @@tomsmith5216
I take pride in riding past people with expensive bikes :P And i also enjoy my rather low end aluminium frame that i've upgraded the groupset with. Primarily because it looks nice :D
Its not being cheap, it’s Financial efficiency
Cannondale have been banging on about this for years. CAAD 8,10,12 etc. Great crit bikes.
Do a comparison with a high end steel bike
stfu
I'm sure they would be happy to do it, but they would have to find a set of bikes with the same geometry that included a steel framed bike.
I loved my Lemond 853 frame bought in 2000, rode it until this year because it I thought it felt so good, sadly no comparison with modern frames which are much better it loathes me to admit...
very mature amer, we are proud of you.
I have the new Lemond Washoe 853 bike - sublime riding bike - wouldn't swap it with a carbon bike anyway - even if you gave it for free.
I still have buyers remorse from 2012 buying my T700 Carbon frame. (Giant Defy Advanced 3 with 105 group set) for £1500. Wished I'd gone for a similarly speced alluminium one off of Ebay. Can't leave it anywhere in town, throw a D-Lock on it, you worry how it is stored. It's sexy, bike of the year, the red and black number gets compliments and extended looks at the club but I'd still swap it (+ a little renumeration - the hard part because everyone wants a deal LOL) for alluminium for the above reasons. Toooo much of a luxury for me. If you really want to loose the grams why go for less than a SL T-600 carbon anyway.
As far as the better componentry; how much does that 'scale'? Meaning, I'd definitely prefer an aluminum Shimano 105 bike to a Carbon Sora/Tiagara bike (if such a thing even existed; I sure hope not). But I might not really reap the benefits of a Dura Ace groupset on an aluminum frameset; and might be happy with an Ultegra 6800 Carbon bike instead (which is, incidentally, what I ride). As you make your way up the price range, it seems the differences between higher tiers diminish. I think most folks would agree Ultegra is a bigger step up from 105, than Dura Ace is from Ultegra (or maybe you wouldn't agree?). What say you, GCN? Is the "Go for better components over a carbon frame" always true; or is there a point when you're already using upper-tier componentry, like Ultegra, that the upgrade to Carbon might be worth more than the upgrade to the top-of-the-line (like Dura Ace?) #TorqueBack
There are plenty of carbon bikes with lower end group sets on them. And you have to consider that all carbon frames are not the same. With quality brands, the properties of the carbon frame will be designed in based on the purpose of the bike. With cheaper brands, they may just go off of a chart and pick the type of carbon layup they hope will work (think Ebay Chinese carbon fiber frames).
I had a choice between a CAAD10 /w Ultegra and a SuperSixEvo (non Hi-Mod) w/ 105, all other components being equal and the price between the two were exactly the same. I chose the CAAD10 for 2 reasons, better groupset and also the frame allows for Di2 routing if I ever want to upgrade - the non Hi-Mod Evo frames at the time didn't have the internal routing for Di2. No regrets, it's a fantastic frame.
No disagreement there, I wouldn't buy one of those other aluminum frames over an Evo either. ;)
They propagate this weight and carbon crap. Unless you are the .00000000001% of the human population on the TOUR...you don't need or require any of this stuff. Now, I'd say the "LOOKS" category is the MOST important part. (I'm not being sarcastic) Amateur riders don't need any of this stuff, as aforementioned, and hence the ONLY thing is the looks. For you, for your friends and for others. Less weight and better components just gets your workout over with faster and provides a lesser workout as well. More weight, more friction...etc..etc...better workout. They should do a 7 Kilo bike versus a 10 Kilo bike and over the same distance and MEASURE THE CALORIES BURNED! My carbon bikes are for sheer superficial means. In other words, set up for what I think looks NIIIIIIIIICE! I don't care about the weight or the components as long as they work well and provide me with durability. As mentioned all the time...Tubeless wheels, chains that give you 2 to 5 w more power over the 1st 200 kilometers?, power meters? Carbon anything... ALL for PAID TOUR RIDERS AND THEIR STAFF OF 100s and the profit of companies and sponsors. I'd like to see a video on the BEST bike for the ride 50-200 kilometers amateur rider. As you notice the pros use a bike they can beat the SHIT out of during training and practice. I don't want a bike designed to be the fastest for One stage of the Tour. (that usually means it's as uncomfortable as all hell!) Like the S3 he's owned for years is an example of a bike for everyday use. Wait, not really. They ride much more than any amatuers, ride in prefect cm road conditions, do this for a living, are former pro riders aamnd can get the best equipment. They should budget them and have to ride a bike the average consumer would. I'd like to see the difference in calories burnt over the sane distance with lesser components and a heavier bike. NOT TIME...I don't need to save 53 seconds over a 100 kilometer ride but, I do want a better workout whilst being able to cover said distance.
I've got a carbon bike with sora (I am only 14 so I don't need ulterior or anything) but i know there are a lot of companies doing this with their lower end carbon bikes😄
Nice test - thanks!
For me, durability is the most important category ... My carbon frame has survived more than 55000km and well over a 100 races. However, it has been collecting stone chips like nothing else.
So, for my cyclocross/ gravel bike I went for aluminium frame ... and no chips thanks to the anodised surface!
carbon for harsch gravel is asking for damage
That's the problem with carbon it's great until it's not and half the frame is snapped during ride. Damage is rarely visible
If aluminium frames are so great, make sure you have aluminium (or steel) forks on it ;)
My aluminum CAAD10 was slightly faster than my current carbon Trek Madone. And guess what...Marco Pantani still has some if the fastest recorded speeds up Alp D'Huez on that old Bianchi aluminum frame.
fyi- just tested the new CAAD12. Yup, it's more comfy then even my carbon Madone.
Yeah, considering a new carbon bike after a aluminium one. And I'm still happily riding my 1980's steel Koga Miyata..
Right here with you ! Still riding my 80 miyata on steel. How much better really would I feel riding the new material? Feels like splitting hairs more than a huge jump. That being said, I think these guys are right about the importance of good components. That’s probably where most of the difference is
The black alloy bike looked the nicest. I have just retired my 2004 alloy Colnago Lux Dream , it has been a great bike equiped with Campag record kit, it has served me well, but recently, on descents over 50MPH, it has started to do tank slappers, and not wanting to end up on the tarmac, it is now on the wall of my garage.
Wow thanks for confusing my mind even more😂
I purchased a carbon bike with lower end components. But over the past 2 years, I've upgraded the components and wheels. I'm very happy with the route I've taken and it will probably live in it's current configuration for a while. Now I just need to update my other bikes...
Could you guys make a difference video of Road bike vs MTB for road use? So I can see if the added speed would be worth it, compared to bot being able to ride in the forrest. :)
At age 37 I bought my first road bike after years of commuting on MTB. The difference is unbelievable. I love my roadie :-)
Or you could get a dual sport and it would be good
Or just drive to work and buy a monster mtb, more smiles per mile.
Thanks for doing this comparison some interesting information here, Just thought I'd share some advice offered to me 4yrs ago when I first got into cycling the recommendation was that give aluminium a go for a couple of reasons firstly the bikes are cheaper and if the desire to ride fails you haven't outlayed a lot of money on a bike and not riding it,the second piece of advice was aluminium tends to be a little more resistant to problems if crashed, hence I bought a Trek 2.1 from 2012, and still ride it all the time
I like S-Work. I want to change to S-Work next time. 😍😍😍😍
I have a 2015 cannondale synapse alloy...and LOVE it
I'm at a little dilemma, I want an aero bike for around £1,300. Now i have fallen in love with the Giant Propel that comes with a great carbon frame that is largely unchanged even for the top of the range that Kittel used last year But it comes with 105 groupset.
Or do i gor for a Merida for about the same price with an aluminium frame and Ultegra groupset and fulcrum wheels, i do crit racing and long distance riding and i want to keep the bike for at least 5 years.
...then go for the one with fulcrum wheels, these will last forever. You won't really see a difference between 105 and Ultegra, its just a small weight difference. Also Merida looks much nicer i think *G*
ViRuSTriNiTy I had a go on the Giant and it is glorious, it comes with its own 35mm deep wheels, also I'll wait to see what the 2017 model will be like, and the merida is.about 1.5 kg heavier :(
Go for the Propel and over time upgrade the components bit by bit when you have the monet
Propel!
Propel with 105 for sure! Especially since you're saying the Merida is heavier. I've been digging the Giant Propel a lot as well.. And if you're keen on waiting to see what the 2017 looks like, wait until they're for sale and you'll likely be able to get the 2016 for even less.
I'm a big guy (6'4", 260 lbs). I rode DH for a decade, before coming back to more AM riding. I'm running a set of Oxive carbon fiber wheels.
I am amazed at how strong they are. The wheelset weighs just over 1600 grams, and they are STRONG. I had a crash this summer, moving at around 15 MPH, where I stuffed the front wheel sideways into the ground, full on 90 degrees like.
I took a beating. My bike took a beating (I twisted my stem 90 degrees on the steerer tube, the brake calipers on both ends of the bike had to be realigned, and my rear thru axle got twisted weird in the frame somehow).
My wheels were perfect. Not a mm out of true. As a big guy, I have a history of destroying rims. My carbon rims with a season of riding have a few nicks and scratches, otherwise they are perfect.
and that's why I chose an aluminum frame with a 105 5800 R$ 5.000,00 (8,5kg) groupset instead of a carbon frame with a Claris or Sora group (8,5kg) costing R$ 10.000,00.
I just visited the store and had the same dilemma, then I came across this. Thanks GCN
And I'm still here riding my steel frame
The Alu black looks awesome😛
Steel for me....much more forgiving.
So happy for this video. It explains everything I say to friends looking for a road bike. Now I can just tell them to watch this video.
깔끔한 한글 번역 감사합니다. 궁금하던 점 내용도 충실하군요. 가성비는 알루미늄 ^^
Really smart test. Shows how subtle the materials are anyway. Was there a video on aluminum and carbon wheels?
im seriously debating on either one, i know i save around 500-1000 with aluminum and still get nearly as good performance but i know buying the carbon fiber of course is a financial setback and if it gets stolen or broken ill be upset.
I went full aluminum saved lots of money and got a great bike, no regrets here.
Your bike's more impact-resistant too.😉
GCN should do a video on major changes to bike geometry in recent decades and why. GMBN did a similar video on geometry differences between mtb disciplines.
The first bike I bought was carbon fiber. It was expensive, but at least I won't have to upgrade any time soon.
I would really suggest for new cyclists to go with the cheaper option just to make sure you enjoy the sport. Get an aluminum frame, and spend the money you save on good gear, then upgrade to a carbon fiber after you've got more dedication to cycling.
The tap test 😂 I love it!
Massive difference in a crash. I came off my carbon fibre Giant recently and snapped the front forks in two, I really dont think that an aluminium frame would have suffered as much. There is also the issue of invisible damage - an alloy bike shows the damage a lot more easily. Lastly, what about lifetime - alloy frames are said to have a life of about five years but I guess most of us would have moved on to our next bike (or two) by then.
Your suggesting that an aluminum frame with a carbon fork would have had no damage to its fork?
I agree regarding the lifespan! So few people keep something for more than 5 years, so lifespan is probably not an issue. With the chance of a crash always being there an aluminum frame might make more sense as a lot of frames probably won't make it to 5 years before something damages them.
Very peculiar this - I've had my crossbike for seven years, two minor offs and still a very reliable daily bike. A crossbike frame is however significantly sturdier than any roadbike.
Bradley Comis but aluminium also have a five year lifespan...
And I meant a full alloy bike compared with a full carbon.
My mountain bike is almost 15 years old, still works great and still love how it rides.
For a good aluminum bike you must try the Specialized Allez Sprint X2 this thing is a speed machine
I've got a specialized sirus bike made of premium alluminium, this machine runs so fast and smooth. It makes me think not to burn money to upgrade to carbon frame.
Specialized are real speed machines.
What happened to cromoly and titanium
Cromoly and titanium bikes: *hello darkness my old friend*
Chromoly is just a fancy way of saying steel that's thinner, but it's not necessarily better despite steels recent resurgence. The come back of steel is dominated by fans. Titanium is better than steel, lighter and harder to manufacture, but more expensive. It's not worth buying when aluminum dominates in price.
One of the greatest benefits of carbon frames and rims is that it can be shaped into a much more complex design. Endurance bikes such as Roubaix's and Domane's lend themselves to carbon construction. More importantly, aero frames have evolved drastically since the rise in popularity of carbon.
So, carbon might not be needed for the regular rider, like me, but it would absolutely benefit a racer who needs to reduce wind resistance.
To save you the eight minute video - besides a few preferences, they pretty much agree that one isn't DRASTICALLY better than the other.
Great video guys! I was just having this convo about Mountain bikes the other day, as some of the frames are really only max 400g lighter and less on big enduro bikes, is it worth the extra 1000$ ? BTW 30km and 500m climb is your local loop, just casually do it a few times, beasts!!
You two look like some squatting slavs in tracksuits ;D
some lame ones as the feet don't lay flat on the ground. 5/10 in true slav scale.
It's not a squat if the heels are not on the ground. It's a crouch.
I have been looking at the Trek FX3 (aluminum, 25.8lbs) and the FX6 (carbon fiber, 20.3lbs). Also $800 vs. $2100. Decision. I am carrying about 15 extra lbs right now. It would be smarter to lose the extra weight than to spend the extra $1300 to lose 5 lbs. in bike weight.
my front end is very stiff....
mine too!
You guys should do another video like this with the new presenters & have them do a century ride on each frame material.
Titanium or carbon fibre?
Titanium
Guys you are amazing with your vids! I'm getting into cycling and your channel is soooo informative 👊🏾! Merci.
natürlich Aluminium lieber noch Stahl aber Hände weg von diesem filigranen zerbrechlichen Carbon Zeugs. Ein gutes Radel braucht 36 DTSwiss Speichen eine gute Mavic A719 Felge und eine kurzen 400mm GERADEN Lenker. 1 mal 10 XT Schaltung, XT Klickpedale (PD M8000) und alles wird GUT. Reifen ganz klar Conti 4000 S2 in 25mm. So schaut in meinen Augen ein gutes und Robustes Radel aus!
@GCN: I'm wondering something: Why didn't you guys use a Carbon-Fibre "SLR"6 bicycle? Once I found out that there's a Trek "SL"6, Trek "SLR"6, Trek "AL"6", and Trek "ALR"6, I went to the Trek.com website and talked to a Trek Customer-Service--Representative via their website's "LiveChat"-function[/feature], and confirmed that a "SLR"6 is of a better-quality carbon-fibre than a "SL"6 carbon-fibre, and that the ["SLR"-Carbon-Fibre's] equivalent would be a "ALR"6 Aluminium [road-bike].
i.e. @the "one's a SL6, and the other's a ALR6".