Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Which frame should I build up for the 2010 season?

What do you think the + or - of each is?.....I can't decide which one to buy (let's say they are about the same price). Will a FS Carbon frame relieve some of the stress and perhaps last longer?

suggestions?

Thanks
 

·
It's about showing up.
Joined
·
12,738 Posts
I had the option

for my son and went with a Yeti Arc frame. My son was not interested in Ti though our contact with Lynskey is pretty nice. I know carbon fiber is very popular but they seem so fragile. One of my racers just got a Stumpjumper Expert Carbon 29. What a beautiful bike. It already has a moon on the top tube. I sent one of my kids to Worlds in 2008 and his Orbea cracked in transit. I've not had a worry on my Roubaix road bike but I've seen so many carbon fiber bikes cracked and chipped that when it came down to really spending money I went with a metal bike. I'm not saying that this is the best decision but it is what my gut told me. Having said that I also opted to stay with a 26 and not the current rage 29.

So maybe what I am saying is it depends on who is paying for it. In this case it is Dad and this Dad is making a conservative choice.
 

·
Scooterist
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
I have raced steel the last few years, and have orderd a ti for next season.

For the same reasons as above. I buy my own gear and bikes, so they have to last.

I had problems with a carbon road bike, and dont want to risk my season because of a frame issue.
 

·
ups and downs
Joined
·
15,600 Posts
The other factor to consider is your size and weight. When the Maxxis team and Geoff Kabush switched from Litespeed bikes to the carbon fibre RMB's he noticed a big difference in stiffness for pedal input and less whippiness in handling. If you're taller and a need a big frame size, Ti is much flexier, in more compact frame sizes it likely won't make that big difference..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,937 Posts
Ti. doesn't make sense to me as a hardtail racing bike. Sure it will last forever but in a couple of years there will be some new standard that could make your frame obsolete. Canti to v-brake to disc, BB30 to BBwhatever... there's always something new coming.
I would probably get scandium as a "disposable" racing bike or take my chances with a nice carbon frame.
Cyclocross? I'd would love to have a Ti. frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
WOW some great info.....and I think following the Pro's is a great idea, but the only thing is that I cannot buy a new frame every year if it cracks. Does the weight advantage worth giving up some durability?

This bike will be for racing and training so it will get a lot of use. My friend races an Orbea Alma and loves it, but recently saw a small buldge in the BB area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Berkeley Mike said:
for my son and went with a Yeti Arc frame. My son was not interested in Ti though our contact with Lynskey is pretty nice. I know carbon fiber is very popular but they seem so fragile. One of my racers just got a Stumpjumper Expert Carbon 29. What a beautiful bike. It already has a moon on the top tube. I sent one of my kids to Worlds in 2008 and his Orbea cracked in transit. I've not had a worry on my Roubaix road bike but I've seen so many carbon fiber bikes cracked and chipped that when it came down to really spending money I went with a metal bike. I'm not saying that this is the best decision but it is what my gut told me. Having said that I also opted to stay with a 26 and not the current rage 29.

So maybe what I am saying is it depends on who is paying for it. In this case it is Dad and this Dad is making a conservative choice.
no it will be me paying for it, and my son is still too young to ride...but I can't imagine what frames will look like in 12+ years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,659 Posts
I broke my carbon superfly 29er frame, in a small fall over accident. Had the bike repaired for ~$500, which includes the cost of dismantling and rebuilding the bike at the bike shop. I thought the bike was done for, but this place does some miracles with carbon:

http://www.calfeedesign.com/howtosendrepair.htm

My break was much worst than what's pictured in the website. Half the seatstay cross section was completely seperated. I thought it was done for, but they fixed it.

I could have gotten a crash warranty frame for $800, but I liked the idea of repairing it.

The bike is super, super awesome, when it's not getting scratched up and broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
Carbon is the superior engineering material if you can afford it. Some carbon builders overbuild there carbon frames, so they end up being a weight wash of even heavier.

I bought a Motobecane Ti bike this year because it was 1/2 price of the Gary Fisher Carbon and the same weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,725 Posts
Depends on how long you are looking to keep the bike.

Every single manufactur of Carbon Frames has them break. There are some time proven designs, the Orbea's being one that comes to mind, but if you do enough research you will find stories of failures for anybody.

Carbon is really nice to ride and super light. If you replace your bike every year or maybe every other year Carbon is the way to go, as long as you choose an appropriate manufacture.

If you keep your bike longer than that then look for another material, keep in mind another material does not guarentee longevity. (on the race circuit this year I saw as many failures of high end steel bikes as I did of high end Carbon bikes)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,937 Posts
Oh, now you edited your post and want a carbon FS bike. You should figure out if you want a Trek, Specialized, Giant, Santa Cruz or a Yeti and then ask that manufacturer's sub forum for help on choosing between the carbon or aluminum frame. The carbon frame should be lighter and stiffer in the bottom bracket but it'll cost ya.
Also if you're not an Expert racer who cares? 100-200 grams will make no difference at all. Spend your money on bib shorts and good food. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
LMN said:
(on the race circuit this year I saw as many failures of high end steel bikes as I did of high end Carbon bikes)
And there's the real truth. Every material will fail. Carbon, Ti, Steel. It doesn't matter. So why does carbon get all the scrutiny? Because people are afraid of change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
pop_martian said:
And there's the real truth. Every material will fail. Carbon, Ti, Steel. It doesn't matter. So why does carbon get all the scrutiny? Because people are afraid of change.
Cost, as already mentioned, is a big factor. For non expert racing types, what point is there in buying expensive carbon frames if they will fail just like a cheap steel one?
 

·
It's about showing up.
Joined
·
12,738 Posts
Afraid of change?

I think there is merit in that but it is dismissive. Just do a search on this an you will find failure in the normal course of use. Failures in other frames are more generally at the limits of use; jumping, collisions and such. I see hundreds of frames raced but do not see the problems with metal frames I see with Carbon fiber. Granted much of that is cosmetic but the frequency of failures with Carbon Fiber and the tendency to see them as frames which have a short life is hard to ignore. That factory reps can be at the venue and replace frames is nice but it tells me that R&D is still taking place at the race.

In fairness the old performance of carbon fiber to "fail catastrophically" as a component is far, far reduced. I use them throughout my rides as much as possible: stems, bars, cranks levers, seatposts, waterbottle cages. Yet these components, in the lifetime of a bike such as my Bontrager of 13 years, can be seen as expendables to be replaced every few seasons or less. I do not feel that way about my metal frames.

I am not a racer, nor am I very hard on my bikes anymore but my racer teens are and being careful is not a highly developed quality in the utilization of their bikes. This includes transport and general handling as well as racing. Expenses for this crew are out of pocket and replacing a frame at the end of a year, as was once done with Aluminum, is just not on. Does anyone remember that or recall their stiffness/brittleness. Were we afraid of change then?

With that I have to admit I have seen a fair amount of change. In parallel I have seen a lot of change in computers and cameras and especially cameras going from film to digital. I have learned that transition is not crisp or final and that the problems in transition from one paradigm to another have many similarities including boosterism, denial, patches, bridges, accommodations, new kinds of limitations and 'frinstances of success and failure both. Some adjunctive features can make the translation to the next avatar without a hitich, some require adapters, and some face extinction or demand more development. Sometimes all the new stuff works perfectly for a few people and they can't understand why anyone is not getting on the wagon. Sometimes islands of specialization are created. Sympathetic to this, in a horizontal sense, is the quiver of bikes and the styles of riding.

This is hardly a new or unique process. It is managing change through a parsimonious use of resources at limits defined by each user.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top