5 ms·

It’s not necessarily about “elite racing performance” for a lot of people. Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticea

It’s not necessarily about “elite racing performance” for a lot of people. Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. For road bikes which typically don’t have any shock absorbers, a decent quality carbon frame is simply much more comfortable to ride on than the equivalent aluminum frame from the same manufacturer. This can make a huge difference on longer rides. Carbon fiber isn’t as fragile as the article suggests. People have been riding it for decades and their bikes haven’t been exploding. Really any crash significant enough to cause frame damage will be a total loss to any bike frame, regardless of material (in terms of repair cost). No one “needs” a carbon bike but to say there’s “no good reason to buy one” is just dumb. Also the article suggesting steel frames over carbon is just weird at this point. Steel bikes are a super niche audience of budget or retro riders. I’m wondering if this article is a joke post.

tmiku 3y ago
I don't think it's a joke, Outside's writing has taken a hit since the acquisition in 2021. It's a headline for people to click on and the writing is an afterthought. I rolled my eyes with the steel frame thing at the end too. Steel bikes are cool, going fast on a steel bike is even cooler, but the Insufferable Steel Bike Guy is definitely on the rise.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  This is the bikesnobNYC guy trolling in norm-core-article form.
- jerlam 3y ago
  The only Outside Online articles that I don't regret clicking on are from Alex Hutchinson, who writes mostly about performance studies: https://www.outsideonline.com/byline/alex-hutchinson/ https://www.outsideonline.com/byline/alex-hutchinson/
mikae1 3y ago
> Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. This opinion piece argues that steel, not aluminum, is the alternative. Slightly wider tires makes differences between frame materials subtle[1]. Wider tires are more comfortable and certainly not dramatically slower[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE [2] https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-wider-tires-are-not-slower/ https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-wider-tires-are-not-slow... (written by a wide tire salesman)
- henriquez 3y ago
  Did you read my comment ?Steel bike people are going for retro flair, not modern performance.
yodsanklai 3y ago
> Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. It's a common argument but I wonder how much more comfortable a carbon bike can be (I never had a carbon bike). Would bigger tires compensate for a more rigid frame?
- beached_whale 3y ago
  People are riding bigger tires than in the past anyways. 28mm and 32mm road tires are not unusual these days, comapred to commonly seeing 23-25mm. Gravel bikes are often larger. They are not generally going to be slower because they are bigger in significant ways.
- E39M5S62 3y ago
  I went from a (heavy) steel gravel bike running 700x42mm tires to a carbon fiber bike (frame, fork, stem, bars, wheels) with 700x38mm tires. There's such a vast difference in comfort on gravel roads that it's difficult to fully quantify. I still ride a titanium road bike, because it's plenty fast and I'm not as interested in comfort on those rides.
tadfisher 3y ago
And if you go with a truly lightweight steel frame, like with triple-butted Reynolds 853 or 953 tubes, you're in for a nasty surprise when the top tube folds like tissue paper. I absolutely believe these frames have the best ride quality, and are comparable with aluminum for weight, but durable they are not.
303uru 3y ago
As someone with a stable of 12+ carbon, steel, titanium and aluminum bikes, meh at most. I think this is marketing over reality. The only real benefit I see for carbon is you can make a much more aero frame, end of story. Hard to make round tubes aero. >Really any crash significant enough to cause frame damage This part , however, is straight non-sense. My titanium road bike has taken hits that have put multiple carbon bikes out of commission in the same time frame. Titanium and steel are drastically more durable, will take much harder hits and are repairable.
epx 3y ago
Some say carbon fiber has the steel-like dampening properties. And steel can be welded by anyone. OTOH an aluminum bike has to have suspension because it is so harsh to ride w/o it. In general, the whole current bike culture with very expensive bikes/parts and a plethora of expensive and semi-proprietary tools is disgusting.
- mikae1 3y ago
  > an aluminum bike has to have suspension because it is so harsh to ride w/o it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE
- habnds 3y ago
  I'm curious what you think the vibration dampening properties of steel are. It's very notable to me that high quality steel bikes almost always come with a carbon fork if not suspension and that tuning forks are made of steel according to wikipedia. To me steel is in the "resonator" category, not something that dampens vibration particularly well. I also wonder if people like the ride quality of steel because, like very thin high pressure tires, it carries high frequency vibrations that _feel_ fast but science tells us clearly are not good for going fast.
  - epx 3y ago
    Partly on my own experiences, used to have a steel bike w/o suspension that I rode for thousands km and it was a joy, the next bikes I've had were aluminum and locking the suspension makes them unbearable. But yes, could be the geometry as well.
habnds 3y ago
they dampen vibrations better than steel and titanium too tbh. I've never understood the "ride feel" thing about metal frames. Metal tubes are very resonant. that ride feel is just the same vibrations that make on 23m tires _feel_ faster compared to 30m but the science is clear that high frequency vibrations are bad.
- thefz 3y ago
  For MTBs, a steel hardtail does feel very, very different from an aluminum one. Steel feels springy and just absorbs a lot of vibrations. You can feel it in your ankles after a ride. Definitely there is a large difference between steel/titanium and everything else.
  - habnds 3y ago
    I would be very suspicious that some combination of different tires and different geometry between the bikes your comparing is much more responsible for that perceived difference than the different metals. Wearing cushioned running shoes instead of indoor soccer shoes would have a bigger effect i would guess.
    - thefz 3y ago
      Ride an alu hardtail fast and hard, then tell me how your joints feel. Steel flex is real.
      - henriquez 3y ago
        Or ride a carbon bike (without crashing) and tell me how much better you feel.
vehemenz 3y ago
I don't really disagree with your points, but I would still advocate for steel over carbon because the extra cost of good carbon isn't worth it. You're saving a few seconds on a climb. Recreational cycling has normalized spending thousands of dollars for such incremental improvements, but when you take a step back it's pretty hard to justify.
- henriquez 3y ago
  It just depends on what your hobbies are. $4k for a decent name-brand carbon bike is a lot of money to spend on a hobby, but sometimes hobbies defy justification. There is only a limited amount of time you can spend on this world. How to prioritize things you want is a personal decision. I just disagree with the premise that carbon bikes are something only elite athletes benefit from. I know what I like, and I only have to justify a decision to myself. (Full disclosure: right now my main bike is a _nice_ aluminum hard-tail mountain bike because my carbon road bike was stolen lol)
Findecanor 3y ago
I don't have a racing bike. My bike is an aluminium city bike. And I like feeling the bumps, it makes me feel more connected with the road surface. I also like crafting with manual hand tools over 3D-printing, and I like using kitchen knives that are not too sharp. I also tactile mechanical keyboards with my computers. I suppose I'm just a touchy feely guy. Each to their own.
- henriquez 3y ago
  Once you start doing 50+ mile rides all that tactility starts catching up to you. The benefit of carbon (if it’s good quality) is dampening vibration _without_ sapping power.

tmiku 3y ago

I don't think it's a joke, Outside's writing has taken a hit since the acquisition in 2021. It's a headline for people to click on and the writing is an afterthought. I rolled my eyes with the steel frame thing at the end too. Steel bikes are cool, going fast on a steel bike is even cooler, but the Insufferable Steel Bike Guy is definitely on the rise.

operatingthetan 3y ago
This is the bikesnobNYC guy trolling in norm-core-article form.
jerlam 3y ago
The only Outside Online articles that I don't regret clicking on are from Alex Hutchinson, who writes mostly about performance studies: https://www.outsideonline.com/byline/alex-hutchinson/ https://www.outsideonline.com/byline/alex-hutchinson/

mikae1 3y ago

> Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. This opinion piece argues that steel, not aluminum, is the alternative. Slightly wider tires makes differences between frame materials subtle[1]. Wider tires are more comfortable and certainly not dramatically slower[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE [2] https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-wider-tires-are-not-slower/ https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-wider-tires-are-not-slow... (written by a wide tire salesman)

henriquez 3y ago
Did you read my comment ?Steel bike people are going for retro flair, not modern performance.

yodsanklai 3y ago

> Carbon fiber frames dampen road vibrations a lot better than aluminum and are noticeably less “harsh” to ride. It's a common argument but I wonder how much more comfortable a carbon bike can be (I never had a carbon bike). Would bigger tires compensate for a more rigid frame?

beached_whale 3y ago
People are riding bigger tires than in the past anyways. 28mm and 32mm road tires are not unusual these days, comapred to commonly seeing 23-25mm. Gravel bikes are often larger. They are not generally going to be slower because they are bigger in significant ways.
E39M5S62 3y ago
I went from a (heavy) steel gravel bike running 700x42mm tires to a carbon fiber bike (frame, fork, stem, bars, wheels) with 700x38mm tires. There's such a vast difference in comfort on gravel roads that it's difficult to fully quantify. I still ride a titanium road bike, because it's plenty fast and I'm not as interested in comfort on those rides.

tadfisher 3y ago

And if you go with a truly lightweight steel frame, like with triple-butted Reynolds 853 or 953 tubes, you're in for a nasty surprise when the top tube folds like tissue paper. I absolutely believe these frames have the best ride quality, and are comparable with aluminum for weight, but durable they are not.

303uru 3y ago

As someone with a stable of 12+ carbon, steel, titanium and aluminum bikes, meh at most. I think this is marketing over reality. The only real benefit I see for carbon is you can make a much more aero frame, end of story. Hard to make round tubes aero. >Really any crash significant enough to cause frame damage This part , however, is straight non-sense. My titanium road bike has taken hits that have put multiple carbon bikes out of commission in the same time frame. Titanium and steel are drastically more durable, will take much harder hits and are repairable.

epx 3y ago

Some say carbon fiber has the steel-like dampening properties. And steel can be welded by anyone. OTOH an aluminum bike has to have suspension because it is so harsh to ride w/o it. In general, the whole current bike culture with very expensive bikes/parts and a plethora of expensive and semi-proprietary tools is disgusting.

mikae1 3y ago
> an aluminum bike has to have suspension because it is so harsh to ride w/o it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcRzp6xwuzE
habnds 3y ago
I'm curious what you think the vibration dampening properties of steel are. It's very notable to me that high quality steel bikes almost always come with a carbon fork if not suspension and that tuning forks are made of steel according to wikipedia. To me steel is in the "resonator" category, not something that dampens vibration particularly well. I also wonder if people like the ride quality of steel because, like very thin high pressure tires, it carries high frequency vibrations that _feel_ fast but science tells us clearly are not good for going fast.
- epx 3y ago
  Partly on my own experiences, used to have a steel bike w/o suspension that I rode for thousands km and it was a joy, the next bikes I've had were aluminum and locking the suspension makes them unbearable. But yes, could be the geometry as well.

habnds 3y ago

they dampen vibrations better than steel and titanium too tbh. I've never understood the "ride feel" thing about metal frames. Metal tubes are very resonant. that ride feel is just the same vibrations that make on 23m tires _feel_ faster compared to 30m but the science is clear that high frequency vibrations are bad.

thefz 3y ago
For MTBs, a steel hardtail does feel very, very different from an aluminum one. Steel feels springy and just absorbs a lot of vibrations. You can feel it in your ankles after a ride. Definitely there is a large difference between steel/titanium and everything else.
- habnds 3y ago
  I would be very suspicious that some combination of different tires and different geometry between the bikes your comparing is much more responsible for that perceived difference than the different metals. Wearing cushioned running shoes instead of indoor soccer shoes would have a bigger effect i would guess.
  - thefz 3y ago
    Ride an alu hardtail fast and hard, then tell me how your joints feel. Steel flex is real.
    - henriquez 3y ago
      Or ride a carbon bike (without crashing) and tell me how much better you feel.

vehemenz 3y ago

I don't really disagree with your points, but I would still advocate for steel over carbon because the extra cost of good carbon isn't worth it. You're saving a few seconds on a climb. Recreational cycling has normalized spending thousands of dollars for such incremental improvements, but when you take a step back it's pretty hard to justify.

henriquez 3y ago
It just depends on what your hobbies are. $4k for a decent name-brand carbon bike is a lot of money to spend on a hobby, but sometimes hobbies defy justification. There is only a limited amount of time you can spend on this world. How to prioritize things you want is a personal decision. I just disagree with the premise that carbon bikes are something only elite athletes benefit from. I know what I like, and I only have to justify a decision to myself. (Full disclosure: right now my main bike is a _nice_ aluminum hard-tail mountain bike because my carbon road bike was stolen lol)

Findecanor 3y ago

I don't have a racing bike. My bike is an aluminium city bike. And I like feeling the bumps, it makes me feel more connected with the road surface. I also like crafting with manual hand tools over 3D-printing, and I like using kitchen knives that are not too sharp. I also tactile mechanical keyboards with my computers. I suppose I'm just a touchy feely guy. Each to their own.

henriquez 3y ago
Once you start doing 50+ mile rides all that tactility starts catching up to you. The benefit of carbon (if it’s good quality) is dampening vibration _without_ sapping power.