[Closed] Alloy vs Carbon FS MTB frames, real world differences.

I guess the carbon will be stiffer (unsure how much?) and the alloy will be more recycle friendly

It will be stffer if they have designed it to be stiffer. How many bike frames have you recycled?

It’s lighter, easier to repair than alu and blinger, everything else is subjective.

Carbon, build the stiffness and flex exactly where you want it, make shapes you can't with Alu etc.

I've ridden the same older SC frames in Alloy and Carbon, there was a bit of extra stiffness in the Carbon but not much, I'm more noticeable in my road bikes.

IMHO the lines always look better without welds though 🙂 and that is what matters

Because being able to build in the stiffness where you wanted it using carbon worked so, so well in Moto GP with their R&D budgets that dwarf the mtb world.

Stick to aluminium, use the spare money to save rotating mass, unsprung mass and then mass at the extremities of the bike - eg the seat. Centralise the mass.

Because being able to build in the stiffness where you wanted it using carbon worked so, so well in Moto GP with their R&D budgets that dwarf the mtb world.

yeah cause motorbikes......

Only 450 difference between alloy and cc ( once you factor in postage) from ITM racing on eBay- if your med or large

£800 to save 2.5lbs is better than the old bench Mark of 1£/g

Interesting @ITM, but those are v2’s not the current model which probably explains price.

I’ve got a nice new set of fairly light wheels (c1800g @30mm internal) in the cupboard already that I’d be expecting to use if this happened. I’m not generally a weight weenie and have honestly never actually weighed a bike, just worked on a ‘head’ number of around 30lb being a number I don’t really want to see higher than if build weights are advertised. I’ve put together a vague spreadsheet that seems to show an alloy/pike/GX Eagle 5010 coming in around 28.5lb and a CC with X01 around 25lb. I’m quite sure actual weights will be more, I’ve not accounted for sealant and cables just off the top of my head and I’m sure there will be more. Especially as these are below SC’s own full build weights and I’ve not even really looked at lightening things, just picked the things I like. The CC and X01 build goes north of £6k and scares me although isn’t necessarily unaffordable - but obviously no one wants to spend money they didn’t need to.

Really, I was canvassing for reasons to pick carbon over alloy, I’m not sure the stiffness will matter to me, so really it was ‘is there more to this than weight?’ The Alloy 5010 does look different than the carbon, but not as alien-freak different as metal vs carbon used to, they’re really very similar.

Onza, £1/g figure noted. I’d probably want the nicer shock although I’d probably be happy with the performance elite over the full factory/kashima but yep, once it’s rationalised down to ‘only £800 more and 2.5lb lighter’ it is looking like not such a silly deal maybe. Tbh, this was really where the question began in my head...

Plus, if you go alu, you'll always have the 'I wonder if the carbon was/is better' nag in your head...

Not the bike your looking at but there was an interesting article on NSMB.com where they took identically built Knollys but one carbon and one aluminium.

Might be worth a read.

I’d rather spend my money on something other than a marginally lighter frame that’s more unpleasant to manufacture and harder to recycle when it dies. To me the fork, shock, brakes and even dropper are more important.

Now that people are accepting that more stiffness isn’t always better, maybe we’ll see the recent obsession with carbon die back a bit?

Also, although carbon is easier to fix, it does tend to be more susceptible to crash damage.

it does tend to be more susceptible to crash damage.

Yeah, mine are full of dents.

Aluminium is extremely toxic, polluting and energy intensive in manufacture more so than carbon. In fact there is no Al ore processing allowed in the EU as it’s impossible to meet environmental standards. It’s all done in Nigeria I think, except for a small ore processing plant at Tooreenard co Limerick in Ireland which is to be phased out. Go on google earth and look at the horrendous pollution there, and that is only one part of the ore Process. The giant red ponds are full of cadmium and arsenic left over from purification.

So the ecological arguments aren’t at all clear cut. Carbon is very difficult to recycle agreed, but the fore life is better.

I wouldn’t choose aluminium over carbon for ecological reasons.

gkeeffe - you know there's a large aluminium smelting plant in Fort William, right?

@billoddie, that NSMB Duelling Knollys article was very interesting, thank you! All the more so because it turned out that no-one agreed anything except that the alu bike was cheaper, but as pointed out in the comments and article, Knolly may be a special case in terms of not having deprecated their alloy product as a result of carbon.

gkeefe, point taken but it does become a little more complex as reuse potential for carbon is much lower than it is for any metal. Crossing with Tom from the start, personally I've only sent a few broken frames for recycling, usually I'd be selling on if I wasn't keeping although I'm not a serial swapper. Point very much taken that neither are particularly clean in first production but after that it's considerably less clear cut I think, particularly if you expect to hold on to the bike a while. The more I think about it, the more carbon seems like the new Ti...

Definitely one to think about.

https://nsmb.com/articles/duelling-knolly-wardens-final-verdicts/

So aluminium for Breathing With the Trails?

Placebo effect I’m sure, but for me if I bought the alloy (cheaper) frame I would have a constant nagging doubt. Plus the residual values seem better, so arguably the better retention will reap some rewards in the future.

I emailed transition about this and got a reply from 2 people, they said they are engineered to ride the same. Share similar properties basically. Same stiffness etc. It was sort of put if you have the spare cash, get carbon if not get alloy!

Is this a long term purchase.. how long do you keep your bikes for.... ? If its a long termer, maybe get good kit and nice touch points that make it feel special.... If you look at a frame as a place to attach other stuff, carbon frames are nice but mediocre kit might take the edge off it.

Long term purchase, get the one you really want....
If you chop and change regularly, good finishing kit and swap that across...

gkeeffe – you know there’s a large aluminium smelting plant in Fort William, right?

I think its the steps before that he is talking about

There's a lot of overlap I think, in terms of weight and the way they ride.

Carbon can be lighter or about the same as alu. It's usually stiffer but sometimes too stiff.

It possibly makes most sense for shorter-travel bikes which will be doing less hilly (and potentially less rocky) riding.

Less rocks = less chance of ****ting the frame on one but also rocky trails are where the extra stiffness of carbon may be felt negatively.

The ecological angle? Largely poisturing by partially informed bike companies with an agenda or keyboard warriors. The evidence is inconclusive. I think all the hot air spouted about it is more environmentally damaging than the production of a relatively small number of high-end bike frames.

https://nsmb.com/articles/duelling-knolly-wardens-final-verdicts/ < So aluminium for Breathing With the Trails?

The change in contact patch feel that was described by the second rider is roughly in line with what motorbike racers have experienced as well - however, the loss of information being transferred to the rider has not been viewed as a good thing in that sport.

I bought a 2010 Stumpjumper FSR in alloy, which had a paint issue & was warrantied about 6 months later by Specialized. They had no more alloy mediums available, so said I could either wait until the 2011 bike was released, or pay £50 and upgrade to the carbon version;. which I did.

Apart from it having the Brain shock whereas the alloy one had the standard Fox Triad fitted at the time, I can feel no difference in the frames at all.
I probably wince a bit more when I get a large rock-strike, but I suspect my mince core skill level isn't up to discerning any real-life difference between the two.
The carbon one does look bloody nice though.

What advantages actually are there when all is said and done apart from a chunk of mass?

I expect if you blind tested the same bike with the same kit on it, with the frame difference being the only variable, 99% of people couldn't tell the difference.

I expect in reality, with just 1kg of weight difference, all other things being equal again, you couldn't tell that either on a bike that weighs 13/14kg.

There will be no appreciable difference other than weight. As said, £800 is a good incremental price. And have an alloy Defy and a carbon SL Defy. Whilst one has lots of bling and is bang on 7 kilos, the alloy is a kilo heavier but rides the same (for 10% of the price!)

If you want carbon, buy carbon. But £800 buys a lot of riding somewhere nice. Or a SS to ride in the slop instead.

Not sure about the environmental arguments for carbon over aluminium. The reason they don't have primary alumina plants in the EU is that the ore (bauxite) is part of a tropical weathering profile and therefore is mined in the tropics (e.g. Brazil, Guinea, Jamaica). Transport costs would be huge to ship that to Europe before doing some primary processing. The actual process of Al smelting is ridiculously energy hungry however.

Even if you bought a carbon bike, a lot of the componentry would contain metals of varying types (Al, Fe, V, Cr, Ni etc..). Unfortunately, there is no getting around the fact that metals come from a hole in the ground (even if recycled) and there will be environmental consequences associated with any of these.

Carbon frames are reinforced plastic, but the actual carbon production involves a mine of some kind and ore processing. I'm not familiar with this, but you can bet the process of production is not gonna make the world a better place.

“Yeah, mine are full of dents.”

I’m never quite sure how useful your views are based on what you’ve implied about how many bikes you own, how much you ride them and how hard you ride them.

the ore (bauxite) is part of a tropical weathering profile and therefore is mined in the tropics (e.g. Brazil, Guinea, Jamaica).

Australia and China account for about 50% of world production.

If you're building a new bike to a set budget, buy the Alloy frame, use the saving to buy suspension with better damping, higher spec drivetrain components and lighter wheels. You'll get a much better perfoming bike than by saving a few grams on the frame, and the better parts will weigh less where it matters most.

easy. carbon is for road bikes. aluminium or steel for everything else.

I’m never quite sure how useful your views are based on what you’ve implied about how many bikes you own, how much you ride them and how hard you ride them.

Shots fired!!

Buy whatever one you like the look of, I'm pretty sure the VAST majority of folk on here couldn't tell the difference when actually riding* - me included. I bought my Bronson CC cos I liked the look of it, and my lbs did me a cracking deal on it, otherwise alloy would've done me.

*apart from mibbe road bikes, cos it's so dull you may actually notice the different ride.

So pretty much the settled view of the forum is that it’s lighter, more expensive and possibly prettier. Pretty much where I already was, with head says Alu and heart says ‘ooh, carbon’ 😂

The decision made isn’t going to make much difference to the initial build, I already have the wheels I plan to use and that’s where the big useful weight saving always is. The Knolly article and discussion has been genuinely useful though, always good to know you aren’t necessarily missing something if you’re struggling to see the point...

I have the 2019 alloy 5010 frame and it's plenty stiff believe me, I really like the look of the welds and the massive box of metal around the BB too, but taste is subjective!

If I had cash to spare I would've dropped an extra grand on the CC frame, but I didn't and to be honest after a few weeks on my new 5010 I don't regret not going carbon.

As others have said the geometry/stiffness is the same (that's what SC say) so save your cash and spend the money on those bits.

Whatever you get the 5010 is an incredible bike - bump the fork up to 150mm and it's unstoppable.

150 front is entirely what I'd planned. I'm a big fan of 130r 150f bikes... 🙂

Good to get the specific feedback too!

I think it's time that as men we should point out to other men it's ok to not ride carbon....the best a man can be

Re earlier comment - yeah I was talking ore processing.... not smelting.

Forgetting the much higher ecological damage of ore mining, Aluminium production overall uses 170 kg CO2 per kilo versus 60 kg for carbon, and carbon bikes are a 1/3 lighter - so less material makes Carbon 4x less energy intensive per bike.. Recycled aluminium is not used for bikes (too weak). Water usage is about the same per bike. Carbon also lasts a lot longer re fatigue so the bike should remain in service longer, and it's easy to mend - Aluminium can't generally be re-welded.

No material is perfect, but I think carbon is better for the environment overall. It can be recycled and is being more widely - but what it produces is generally cheap plastic replacement parts... Note I have carbon, steel and aluminium bikes in the house, so I'm no zealot.

What about the failure and rejection rates in the manufacturing process? I’m sure I recall seeing piles of carbon frames that were rejected and are fit for little more than conversion to thermal energy. At least rejected aluminium frames can be recycled.

https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/piles-of-rejected-carbon-frames/

What about the failure and rejection rates in the manufacturing process?

Those pics are the Ali baba warehouses

If you're buying frame only and building, I'd be thinking pretty hard about buying the aluminium version, same angles, tiny bit of extra weight, probably wouldn't notice any real world ride quality difference. If its a factory built bike, the carbon versions tend to be better specced.

The bike industry is so tiny in comparison to others the environmental or recycling value of the different types of frames are meaningless in the wider sense

I never cease to be disappointed when I test ride a carbon bike. the weight difference is not noticeable and they perform as well, but not better than decent metal equivalents. The price premium is just not justifiable for me, i'd rather buy metal and bolt on better components. There are still a number of Carbon bikes I have on my test ride list and I still hope I have that moment where I'm so impressed I'm immediately digging out my credit card because they are damn nice bikes....but I'm not holding my breath. If you test ride a carbon bike and prefer it over a metal counterpart it wont be because the bike is made from carbon...there are so many other things and aspects of bike design that come together to deliver the final product and its performance, and frame material is only one minor part that goes into the mix, so on its own wont define a good bike.

Don't get so hung up on these things. Look at the bike in the round and how it performs for you. The market is pushing carbon because they can justify an astronomical price premium. For the pro's no doubt the small marginal gain performance benefits of carbon matter...but for us mere mortals its just not relevant. But i'd never blame anyone for buying something purely for the bling factor...i'm guilty of this and there are some damn fine looking carbon bikes out there...but lets be honest with ourselves and stop kidding ourselves we NEED one. People accept that someone might buy a Porsche for many reasons other than they are a driving god and need one to get the best out of their driving skills. People buy them because they like them, because of the image they want to portray to others, because its a life's dream and symbolises they've achieved their goals in life and made a success of themselves, they buy them to impress other people etc. Why should mountain bikes be any different?

Only to add some noise, regarding aluminium:

the aluminium frame industry advanced as well. Old aluminium frames were thick wall, simple things.

Now with hydroforming, high strength aluminium the frames are "pieces of art" in my opinion.

Aluminium bikes and carbon bikes are so capable these days. If a bike holds up depends more onto the quality control of the company - and not if it's carbon or aluminium.

Maketing issue: yes - there is a tendency in direction of "more carbon" frame designs.

Horses for courses Wobbliscott. I've never ridden a steel or aluminium road bike and thought it was better than my lightweight aero carbon bike.
My old winter bike was the aluminium version of one of my carbon bikes. The weight was similar but the ride is just way nicer on the carbon bike (Trek Domane SL with the front and rear Isospeed).
My carbon good bike rides like a dream (Canyon Aeroad). Weighs just over 7.2kgs and that's with 65mm deep rims. With road bikes though it depends what you want out of them. I want a fast, stiff but light bike with an aero profile. The only metal aero bike I'm aware of is the Specialized Allez Sprint, which is a good bike, but not the lightest. My Trek Emonda SLR (now gone) was 6.5kgs, I've not seen any metal bikes at that weight. (I've owned and ridden lots of metal road bikes over the years, they don't compare in my opinion to a top level carbon bike for my type of riding and racing). Other people may want steel for its compliance, if I was audaxing I'd probably do the same. For when I used to just race crits I used a light aluminium frame, but it was no better or more robust than a carbon frame, it was just cheap and affordable to replace.

On the mountain bike front I had a 2017 Trek Fuel Ex carbon bike as a demo for a week. I then took out the aluminium version which was cheaper but had better wheels and suspension. To ride the frames felt identical, no noticeable weight difference. I purchased the aluminium Fuel Ex as it was £300 cheaper and came with better kit.

I had the choice of Al or Carbon when buying my remedy frame. I decided that the £1k was better in my pocket and ment I got the fox 36 grip2 over a lesser fork and still have money left over for a shock upgrade in summer if I want it. I think that the quality of suspension is far more important than frame material.

"Horses for courses Wobbliscott. I’ve never ridden a steel or aluminium road bike and thought it was better than my lightweight aero carbon bike."

Bear in mind that this is meant to be a mountain biking forum, so if Wobbliscott is answering like I did, then he's not thinking about road bikes at all! I can see the benefit of carbon frames in road bikes.

My most recent MTB purchase was a Turbo Levo. I bought the base model and had the fork and brakes changed to really good ones and added a nice dropper post. The improvement in components as you went up through the model range was pretty disappointing considering the vast extra cost. And to get a decent set of forks you had to pay extra for a carbon frame - and the last thing I need on a bike with a motor and carrying many pounds of battery is a slightly lighter frame!

I really want a Santa Cruz 5010 and am in the same debate over carbon or alloy. I won't buy a full bike as the components I already have are far better than what I would get on a full build, right up until a CC model, and they would all fit. £1300 extra for cc over alloy seems ridiculous though, even with a better shock. I think I'm going to test ride both back to back and see if I can tell the difference.

and the last thing I need on a bike with a motor and carrying many pounds of battery is a slightly lighter frame!

au contraire.

spesh went all out to reduce frame weight but still conceal the battery in an attempt to make the bike look less like an ebike on your current year levo.
It's almost as light as an extrnal battery shimano motor emtb and rides considerably better for it.

Massively surprised at the Santacruz claimed weight differences between Carbon and Ali. That's huge!
most manufacurers it's only a few hundred grams and then most of the owners invariably seem to cover the thing in 250g of helitape and downtube protection.

3.847kg for a large alloy 5010 (no shock) or 2.5kg for a large CC 5010 (also no shock) according to SC.

Those are pretty big differences which I think is why myself and some others on here are stopping to think so much. If it was more like the difference between C and CC (just over 200g) then the question wouldn’t even have been asked!

Geex, from what I gathered Santa Cruz purposely went out their way to make sure that the alu bikes are considerably heavier to differentiate the alu bikes.
Santa Cruz also know that people wouldn't spend almost 2k more for a CC frame if it was only 200g lighter. It's good as well in that the people who buy alu frames are less able to replace them if they break, so it's probably a good thing they aren't built like coke cans.

Which makes sense because the only enduro alu frames that seem close to rivalling my Supreme SX in terms of being overbuilt is my brother's Nomad and some of the Transitions

The alu Nomad is burly as ****, it's survived 7-8 months of abuse after my brother broke a couple of new Cotic Rockets within a few weeks of each other. So, burlier than a steel frame.

If I crack a weld or something on my Commencal I'll get an alu Nomad.

I got quoted 3.1kg for 5010 alloy and 2.5kg for carbon by a Santa Cruz dealer.
If it is genuinely over 1.3kg lighter, as quoted above, then I can see a big benefit to the carbon frame.

I switched my Spesh Enduro 29 alu frame for an S-Works in carbon to get some weight saving for longer non-uplift days in the Alps. Yes, it is lighter, but in every other respect, I think the alu frame rides better - the very slight give in the alu frame and additional weight seemed to help it track through rough ground much better. All the parts, including shock were swapped over between frames, so it's been interesting to get a direct comparison.

As far as SC go, I used to have a Blur TR alu and switched that for a CC carbon frame that I was offered at cost. Strangely, I preferred the carbon version with that, as it felt slightly softer and less harsh than the aluminium, and the lighter weight meant it climbed really well. I also had CC Tallboy LTc, and that was very similar to the Blur CC i.e. quite forgiving for a carbon frame. Again though, I think the additional sprung weight of the alu frames makes them descend better.

More recently, I demo'd a new Hightower CC and was expecting that SC 'specialness', but was surprised by how dead and wooden the frame felt. To me it felt completely different to the earlier SC carbon frames. Given that experience, and the Enduro frame, if I were you, I'd go aluminium and spend the money saved on better & lighter components.

Dunno, my old 2007 alu Chameleon was built like a tank too and carbon MTB frames didn’t exist in the practical world back when that was current. It’s currently parked next to a 2011 Alu FS bike and despite being a hardtail is noticeably heavier.

It’s certainly never given me the impression it might break! Maybe SC have just always been generous with the aluminium?

If it is genuinely over 1.3kg lighter, as quoted above, then I can see a big benefit to the carbon frame

If climbing is your thing which I guess it may be if you are after a 5010.

If you're getting a more descent oriented bike, the heavier frame can still be built down to the optimal 30-31lb for Enduro - and by doing that, you're going to have a bike that tracks the ground better.

The alu Nomad is burly as ****

MTBR seems to think 4.7kg with a coil shock - I think that's about as heavy as my old Iron Horse Sunday frame!

In fact it's more than my XL RAAW, which is certainly not something that could be considered light 😆

Calv, the weights I’ve just quoted were for the current model 5010 and direct from SC after I emailed them. The weight they gave for the CC agrees with the frame Singletrack put on the scales (although they didn’t specify shock/no shock like SC did).

Unless maybe SC don’t want to sell the alloy frame (unlikely?) I can’t see why they’d artificially make it heavier than it needs to be especially when they have the ‘C’ grade covering ‘less expensive’ already and not wildly out of line with Direct post-drop Intense price wise (arguably Intense are offering a nicer build but SC are offering a dealer chain)

Carbon frames are reinforced plastic, but the actual carbon production involves a mine of some kind and ore processing. I’m not familiar with this, but you can bet the process of production is not gonna make the world a better place.

Carbon fibre is made from acrylic fibre, which is made from acrylonitrile, which is a petrochemical made from the ammonia, propylene and oxygen. Ammonia is made from natural gas generally and propylene comes from cracking gas or oil. Non of those things are particularly ecofriendly but at least they're generally done under tight environmental control.

They don't sell the C grade as a frame only.

My brother's alu Nomad frame is a good 1.25lb heavier than my aluminium Reign was.

Either they threw enough material at the alu frame to make it as strong as the carbon one or they cut back on heavily butting the frame etc to reduce costs.

I'm trying to get away from the whole "enduro" thing. Going back to a more playful bike that can do a bit of everything including full day rides, which I know an enduro bike does anyway, but it is very much on the side of descending, at the expense of fun and climbing ability. I'm sure I will end up with the 5010 cc frame anyway, even if I don't strictly "need" carbon, the lighter weight will probably have me, especially if its as big a difference as SC state.

Yep. The ‘C’ being full build only is very definitely down to sales model.

I’ve included it as my thoughts include a full build C. With heavy wheels and buildkit but full GX Eagle it looks the best part of 2lbs and £500 more than I’d build an alu 5010 with 11sp X01. As I already have the wheels to swap and my ‘self build’ weight calcs are going to be light due to quoted figures and missing stuff out like cables, sealant etc I’m betting they both end up around the same weight but with potential for the full bike to get a couple of pounds lighter as stuff wears out. Tbh, this is probably more interesting than the CC to me and where the ‘so... difference?’ question becomes most noticeable (to me).

I wouldn’t go so far as to say climbing was my thing, but I’m definitely more of an all day rider than someone who enters Enduros, lives for Trail centres or bimbles along BW’s. I proved I’m no good at Enduro years ago! 😅

i so wish i'd weighed my v2 cc frame with shock, it was so light, sticking a 130mm factory fork on felt to double the weight, it was far lighter than my chameleon alu frame..

great choice Op

Sounds to me like SC have chucked a lot of material at the Alu bikes to be on the safe side strength wise and also to differentiate them from the Carbon version.

If I was buying a new full susser, the material wouldn't bother me as much as the suspension components, wheels, brakes and drive train.

That being said if i was considering 2 different brand/model alu bikes, all things being equal i would buy the one that launched in Alu then went carbon rather than launched as Carbon then Alu came along as an after thought.

there’s probably about 1200g difference in the two frames

Is that really true?!
There is apparently 370g difference in frame weight between my carbon Mondraker Dune and an Ali one (Just frame not shock)

Santa Cruz are on the record as saying their alloy bikes are just as stiff as their carbon frames, which probably explains the big weight difference, rather than any conspiracy about forcing people into cc purchases.

The 2019 5010 alloy frame is very chunky and very stiff. If you can ride properly you could easily race enduro on it (I plan to) I took mine for 10 runs down Antur in the slush last weekend and never felt like I needed more travel. I'm off to Danny Hart's place on it this weekend. I know people who've done the mega on 5010s without any issues.

If you're bothered about weight and climbing fast then get an XC bike like a Blur/whyte S120 or a carbon/ti hardtail - the 5010 is a bike which is meant to be ridden hard that's why they're so loved by the likes of 50to01.

I honestly don't notice the extra weight compared to my hardtail apart from when I lift it up to stick it on the roof of my car!

The answer is to get the carbon one. Buying light bling bits then putting them on a heavier frame is soul destroying - even if its all in your own head!

That being said if i was considering 2 different brand/model alu bikes, all things being equal i would buy the one that launched in Alu then went carbon rather than launched as Carbon then Alu came along as an after thought

@billoddie, yep that point was made in the Knolly comparison ^^^, the riders noted that the Alu Warden was first and the Carbon followed and was barely lighter, and wondered if a Carbon first design would be much different.

The current Alu 5010 seems to be just over 1.3kg heavier than the CC version - scarily close to £1/g! I don’t personally think there’s any sort of conspiracy going on to sabotage the weight of the Alu, as mentioned SC Alu bikes have never been particularly light but are quite solid and stiff. I’m going to ponder this, but throwing the full build ‘C’ into the mix as well as a frame only Alu build, it looks like at a similar price point Alu might actually be lighter due to all the nicer kit than the C full build, although if kept long enough the C would eventually get to capitalise on the frame being 1kg lighter as parts were replaced...

... although also we do seem to have come back to weight and bling being the deciders for carbon over other materials which was the main original question!

<blockquoteI’m trying to get away from the whole “enduro” thing.

Yep, this. I have a Hightower C with 36s that comes in at 29lbs with pedals. I call it a "trail bike" as its spot on for where i ride (the Peaks). Most of my mates have gone full enduro and their bikes, by comparison, are heavy, sluggish and quite depressing to ride for anything other than pointing down hill.

Pinkbike published an interesting article last year on the environmental carbon vs aluminium production "Which is better?" debate.

Not as clear cut on either side as some may think. Worth a read.

I've had my fair share of Alu and Carbon frames, but I've never based a purchase on the frame material. I've only ever gone for the carbon version if it was the only choice (SC Hightower), or if it was a good sale price (Hightower and Spark).

I do prefer the looks of a nice carbon frame on full suspension bikes, but that's just my personal preference if all else is equal. It's not "showing off" to other people as I really don't pay attention to stuff like that (you should see the state of my van!).

Must admit thought I'm very fond of my new Pace, but I've no idea if that has anything to do with it being steel 🙂

I reckon there's a difference between Alu and Carbon thats fairly easy to detect when riding them. Difference i say, not better or worse.

Carbon wheels seem to make the bike ride more precisely, even stiffer more direct. Is that a good thing? maybe. Maybe not.

Carbon is not worth any significant price hike IMHO, if you can buy the exact same frame design in Aluminium.

In my experience there is quite a difference in feel between a 25lb bike and a 28.5lb bike. Having said that, my Trek Superfly is lovely, lively and great climbing, and it weighs 27.5lbs which is porky for an XC race bike. On the other hand again, if it weighed 22lbs like Taxi25's does, it would be even quicker!

If the aluminium is designed to ride the same/have the same stiffness as the carbon one then I would expect it to be a good chunk heavier which it seems to be. You can build an aluminium frame the same weight but it will likely be less stiff or weaker. You can build a carbon frame the same weight as a normal aluminium one and it will likely be stiffer and a lot tougher.

Of course you can always mess up either design/manufacturing but the above assumes someone who knows what they are doing.

People accept that someone might buy a Porsche for many reasons other than they are a driving god and need one to get the best out of their driving skills. People buy them because they like them, because of the image they want to portray to others, because its a life’s dream and symbolises they’ve achieved their goals in life and made a success of themselves, they buy them to impress other people etc

I am sure that's some of the motivation yes but why generalise ? Most Porsche owners I know chose their car for the driving experience and their versatility including an uncanny ability to cope with track use (for a road car). The parallel is much closer to mountain bikes in that case as both activities are leisure and somewhat performance orientated rather than boring utilitarian road driving, which most cars are used for including Porsches.

The classic "driving god" / "impress other people" thing usually comes from envious/bitter people but I don't want to generalise.

Interesting series on stiffness and frame material on the Santa Cruz website here:

https://www.santacruzbicycles.com/en-GB/joes-corner

I stopped giving a shit about weight the time I had to strip my Alu FS for painting. Honestly, once you e stripped off the mounting headwear, linkages etc etc etc and you’re just left with the actual front and rear triangle (you knows the bits that would be carbon) they weight 7/10ths of sod all, I couldn’t imagine even losing half that weight would be meaningful.

Maybe the whole stiff / complaint thing is useful, I don’t know.

I personally think the benefit is its cooler, because it costs more.

Alu seems to be making a resurgence, that limited Alu Capra sold out in moments, more Alu bikes are coming out and riders are rediscovering that Alu is actually a fantastic material to make MTB rims out of.

I had the same conversation with myself when I recently wanted a Tallboy. LTM have the current model frames which made it a bit easier to convince myself the CC was a 'deal'. All I can say is it has built up into a really nice bike. How good would alloy have been - I'll never know?

FFS @p-jay ive just got some carbon rims I never realised aluminium rims where superb quality, ive dented enough clearly not finding the ones u mentions.
Ps. I got an alu chameleon it’s superb, can’t wait to get it Powder coated and debadged

@djflexure I’m just slightly envious I’ve held of and held of on those large tallboys.. bargain , and now all gone

FFS @p-jay ive just got some carbon rims I never realised aluminium rims where superb quality, ive dented enough clearly not finding the ones u mention

I’m sure you’ll enjoy them.

Dent a £50 Alu Rim, Crack a £500 carbon one... all part of the rich tapestry of life eh? 😉

Honestly, once you e stripped off the mounting headwear, linkages etc etc etc and you’re just left with the actual front and rear triangle (you knows the bits that would be carbon) they weight 7/10ths of sod all, I couldn’t imagine even losing half that weight would be meaningful.

What you didn't get the one with carbon linkages? Alloy rear ends are normally reserved for the cheaper ones too!!