[Cleared2land]

Disposable income...the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after income taxes have been accounted for. Disposable income is often monitored as one of the many key economic indicators used to gauge the overall state of the economy.

From disposable income we get discretionary income. It's definition is somewhat intuitive... this is our 'play money'. This is the stuff that funds carbon and titanium hardware habits. These habits can be a costly mistress to tame.

 

[TiGeo]

Carbon's main benefit is light/strong/stiff. The vibration dampening or forgiveness you read about is a generalization and is depending mainly not the frame's design. Aluminum bikes can be quite forgiving; my mtb is aluminum and rides wonderfully. I use a high-flex post (made of carbon) that helps give me some give on the rear. My road bike is carbon and rides great. My cross/gravel bike is aluminum and rides great (high-flex post again on this one). I would argue that what people perceive as give/flex/vibe dampening has more to do with tire size/air pressure than anything else. Again, carbon gives you lightweight and stiffness in a strong package and that, IMHO, is it's main benefit. Pros aren't riding carbon fiber b/c it flexes...they want ultra-stiff to put the power down.

 

[TiGeo]

Cool vidi from PB - I have seen a carbon frame fail. Top tube broke from a slow-speed endo and the bike hit a rock when it fell. It was a cheapie frame. I think canon is like a lot of things....you get what you pay for and if you think the $500 Ebay Chinese carbon frame is as nice a those Santa Cruz ones, you are crazy.

 

[SDMTB'er]

The other thing to realize is there are limitless ways to create a carbon frame and various levels of quality in the raw materials. So a carbon frame for a high end bike is not the same "carbon" that a lower end bike has. Sure they both have "carbon" frames but the choice of raw materials and the layup (the way the carbon fiber sheets are laid out, angles, resin, etc.) are much better on a higher end carbon frame bike like Pivot, Santa Cruz, etc.

 

[Cleared2land]

^^^ Yepper, there can be multiple carbon grades and qualities within a single manufacturer. Santa Cruz is an example that offers two grades of carbon.

 

[Guest]

Disposable income...the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after income taxes have been accounted for. Disposable income is often monitored as one of the many key economic indicators used to gauge the overall state of the economy.

From disposable income we get discretionary income. It's definition is somewhat intuitive... this is our 'play money'. This is the stuff that funds carbon and titanium hardware habits. These habits can be a costly mistress to tame.

Unfortunately, your last comment leads to the discussion of spending nondiscretionary income on essentially luxury items. I know a lot of folks with nice toys and no savings. During the Government Shutdown last year a friend who works for the government was panicking about not having any savings to see him through one missed paycheck. I told him that he needed to have a couple months of expenses, especially when you're well paid and in your 50s. Then (between the shutdown and the January budget deadline) he bought his wife a new car. WTF dude? You can't pay for groceries for two weeks if you miss a check but you can afford a new car a week later?

 

[Oh My Sack!]

The new American Way!

MUST. HAVE. THINGS. NOW!

 

[Cleared2land]

instant gratification

 

[SDMTB'er]

I also want to add: if you ride only occasionally, like maybe one time per month (just for example) a carbon frame is probably not worth the extra cost.

 

[291748]

No matter how much you ride, if you don't want to pay a premium for what in most cases will be a minor/incremental "updgrade" over more common materials, carbon is also not worth it. Millions and millions of miles have been ridden on steel, AL and Ti just fine.

 

[phlegm]

No matter how much you ride, if you don't want to pay a premium for what in most cases will be a minor/incremental "updgrade" over more common materials, carbon is also not worth it. Millions and millions of miles have been ridden on steel, AL and Ti just fine.

Not sure Ti quite fits in your example - there's a premium on those frames.

 

[291748]

Good point - Ti is probably more similar to carbon in that respect. A lotta extra $$ for a little extra...something.

 

[SDMTB'er]

Good point - Ti is probably more similar to carbon in that respect. A lotta extra $$ for a little extra...something.

And Al used to be "the expensive option you don't really need and OMG! Look at those thick tubes you need or else the frame will bend in half!"

Thank god mountain bikers are progressive and embrace new technology [emoji6]

 

[Cayenne_Pepa]

Like a Porsche - nobody "needs" one. Carbon does an excellent job of muting brain-scrambling trail chatter, to a mere tremor. That trade-off in ride comfort translates to much longer enjoyment out on the trail.

 

[291748]

And Al used to be "the expensive option you don't really need and OMG! Look at those thick tubes you need or else the frame will bend in half!"

Thank god mountain bikers are progressive and embrace new technology [emoji6]

Or else what?

I'm all about new technology as long as it brings good bang for the buck to the table. Not being a weight weenie I don't see that from carbon, much like I never found Ti to be a good investment. I can get more 'trail muting' from changing tires/air pressure than by coughing up for a carbon HT frame. And of course, with FS frames, there's really no great benefit to it ride-wise.

Not saying there's anything wrong with riding carbon if you like it; just saying I don't see the huge draw or advantage in the case of most riders/bikes.

 

[jeffj]

I would also add that the relatively recent advances in hydroforming have given aluminum some new life in being able to tune ride characteristics in a given frame over traditional round tubes that were used for decades.

One thing I find to be a negative in many carbon bikes is that squeaks and squawks seem to be more frequent and louder. I'm sure the (currently) imperfect world of press fit bottom brackets is one of the worst offenders in that respect.

Carbon can be nice as a frame material when everything is working as hoped for. If you can afford to get carbon, and the nicer bits too, You probably have enough disposable income to deal with what may come at you. If you're in that mid-price bracket, and wondering if you should go with carbon as the frame material, I would rather put the extra $500 to $1,000 into the other components (wheels, fork/shock, carbon handlebar/seatpost, etc.) where it usually makes more of a difference IMHO.

I would also suggest that the effect of having a carbon frame vs. aluminum may be more noticeable if you ride for longer durations at a time. The cumulative effect of the road or trail beating on you may be felt more than the acute sensation from each individual hit. The longer you ride at a time, the more you might appreciate the ride qualities of a carbon frame.

Since I ride both MTB and road (and lots in between), if I could only have one bike be carbon, it would be the road frame where there are less options available to smooth out the ride. JMHO.

 

[phlegm]

...

Since I ride both MTB and road (and lots in between), if I could only have one bike be carbon, it would be the road frame where there are less options available to smooth out the ride. JMHO.

I have definitely noticed different vibration absorption levels from AL and carbon on road frames. That constant buzz from road tires on tarmac is easy to notice.

I also ride a carbon frame in the bush, but I'm not convinced I can tell the difference. I haven't ridden an AL frame in a while, but - for me at least - I'm not certain vibration absorption is on the same level. Not because of any difference in the carbon, but because of larger tires, and constantly varying terrain.

 

[Harold]

My current bike is a (mostly) aluminum frame. It's FS, with carbon seatstays. I don't know the specific reasons why even the less expensive one has carbon seatstays. I figure that early prototype versions probably were all alu and that for one reason or another, carbon was used there for a reason.


DSCF2399 by Nate, on Flickr

I love this bike. There's a carbon version of it now, and I had an opportunity to change my order. It would have cost me a LOT more for comparatively small gains. VERY comparatively small gains. And I would have had to wait another 5-6mo. No thanks.

I did intentionally put carbon in two places on this bike, though. I installed carbon bars. This, mostly because the shape I wanted was only available in carbon. I'm glad I bought them, because they're the most comfortable bars I've ever used. Not because of the material, as far as I can tell. It's entirely a fit issue. I'd buy them again, but if there was an aluminum version for less money, I'd look hard at those.

The other place I put carbon on this bike was in the rims. I wasn't really thinking about the stiffness benefits of carbon at the time. My primary reason for purchasing these rims was because they were tubeless ready fatbike rims when there weren't many options. At the time, there were zero tubeless ready aluminum fatbike rims. There are now, however. These don't weight THAT much less than a lightweight alu fatbike rim, either. Bit the stiffness. Wow, now I get what people say about the stiffness of carbon rims. I'm definitely sold on them in the future. And because of that stiffness, when it came to build a new wheelset for my wife's bike, I went with carbon rims for her, too. The wheelset is probably a little heavier than her older one, actually. But the reason we built a new wheelset for her bike (which already is a full carbon FS with carbon bars) was for durability and ease of service, since her old wheelset was proprietary and such a pain in the @ss to work on, we had to send the wheels out for a simple wheel true.

My road bike, though, is steel. I love it. It's a touring/gravel bike, so it's not a quick or terribly lightweight bike. But it's comfortable and dead reliable. And it can handle a little bit of fairly easy singletrack, too. It has a couple of carbon spacers on the steerer tube, and that's the only carbon it has. And only because I had a bin full of cheap ebay carbon spacers from other bikes. I pulled from the same bin for my FS in the pic.

 

[justwan naride]

My only objection to carbon fiber as a frame material is that it usually doesn't like impact with sharp objects(like rocks). Also, sometimes, damage may not be visible on the surface (like a delamination) but may cause frame failure later while "just riding along".

At the end, it's just a matter of $$$. If you can afford to replace a broken cf frame then good for you. I can barely afford to replace my alu hardtail frame if it breaks. It's already lasted 8 yrs of abuse though, so I guess I'll be fine.

 

[Harold]

My only objection to carbon fiber as a frame material is that it usually doesn't like impact with sharp objects(like rocks). Also, sometimes, damage may not be visible on the surface (like a delamination) but may cause frame failure later while "just riding along".

At the end, it's just a matter of $$$. If you can afford to replace a broken cf frame then good for you. I can barely afford to replace my alu hardtail frame if it breaks. It's already lasted 8 yrs of abuse though, so I guess I'll be fine.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, that a LOT of carbon failures are actually repairable. I have seen some professional repairs from a couple different shops (stuff that tends to cost in the $300-ish range) and the work is quite good. The pro's will go so far as to try to also match the finish of the bike. Now not every carbon failure is repairable. A crack in the middle of a tube? Sure, that's pretty straightforward. Some other failures are not so straightforward and some pro's can't/won't work on them. But not every damaged carbon frame is destined to become trash or wall art.