[Closed] Carbon Vs Aluminium for an MTB

Alloy...seen too many mate's plastic bikes cracking to invest that sort of money in one.

A set of strong light carbon wheels will probably cost less than a frame swap, save the same weight and make a more noticeable difference to how the bike climbs.

Having said that: Liteville 301 🙂

Carbon, a nicely made carbon frame is good. If it does cracking there is a 5 year warranty and still easy to fix.

Seen mates carbon wheels go too! I suspect upgrading the mega would do everything you want other than satisfy new bike syndrome

Carbon frame but like most things buy cheap buy twice...

I've broken two carbon bikes, but I'd buy another one. They ride better than their alloy counterparts. The only caveat would be that I'd get one from a company/shop/distributor who I trused not to **** me about when the inevitable happens. So not Hotlines/Lapierre/Ghost.

Aluminum frames break as do carbon rims so it'll have to be a carbon frame (in Glasgow anyway!)

You could try a Liteville. Aluminium frame as light as many carbon ones, well proven in big mountains and has a 10 year transferable frame warranty that includes DH and racing. Liteville are owned by Syntace, which are the German equivalent of Hope, and have a similar reputation for customer service.

Carbon - because I can repair it 😀 If you crack or damage a aluminium frame then it's a warranty/new frame job, but from my experience I'm yet to see a broken/damaged carbon frame that is't repairable (although it may not always be economical/worth it)

Titanium-that stuff never breaks

Edit-for some reason stw managed to delete what I'd written, so, in summary they're both good, meh

It doesn't matter what brand you buy or how you ride it, someone will always manage to break pretty much anything and everything.

More important to buy a bike that suits the terrain you ride regularly. No point buying a 40lb carbon DH bike for that Trail behind Swindon Nationwide, or buying a 20lb Carbon Race Anthem to hit up Fort William Blacks!

If you can afford it, then imo, carbon brings more freedom to the designer to make a stiffer, lighter frame, but at a significant cost penalty. As a result, if you are only wanting to spend what i would call middle ground money (say up to £2.5k ish) then you might be better with an alloy frame that will come with better components.

If you're lucky enough to have more to spend, then carbon frames are the choice. But, buy the right one.

Having ridden(and broken) both Ally & Carbon bikes, i'd not go back to an Ally frame now unless there was some other significant advantage to do so (like being able to get custom sizing/fitting etc)

I like the idea of a carbon frame personally, but you'd probably give yourself more options buy buying yourself a light set of wheels and maybe upgrading some finishing kit, especially if the frame isn't too tired.

The frame is just one part, makes up about 15% of the weight of the bike so if you like the way yours rides and it's not worn out, it might not be the best place to start losing weight.

In true STW tradition, I'll start off by challenging your premis 🙂 A reduction of a pound or two of static weight isn't going to make a noticeable difference to climbing and if it did there are better places to start than the frame (usually the rider).

Stiffness makes a difference though and carbon can have an advantage here, especially for hardtails. But once you add suspension into the mix the performance of the suspension will be so much more important than the frame material as to render the latter irrelevant.

Basically, if you want a bike that climbs well then look for a bike that was designed to climb well and don't worry about the frame material. Of course it probably wont be as much fun on the way down as your mega, but everything is a compromise.

Finally, it goes without saying, but all of this is irrelevant if the people you go on holiday with are even slightly fitter than you. If that's the case they'll be dropping you whatever you ride and you should have spent the time you wasted reading this getting some more miles in 🙂

+1 to what roverpig has written.

Weight reduction in three steps:

1. Reduce weight of rider.
2. Look at wheels
3. See #1

to help with lots of climbing on consecutive days when we are on holiday.

It'll be a lot of cash for very little gain in this department, unless you get a nice light hardtail, but assume you're still wanting an AM style bike for some holiday fun.

Does your rear shock have a good pedal platform? Do you use it? That'll probably make more difference to climbing than a pound off the frame.

Otherwise, smaller chainring / bigger sprockets. Fit a double on the front maybe and a small granny so you can spin up the climbs better.

Edit... sorry, forgot the usual STW response... have a poo before the ride, that always helps. Also have a rummage through your pack and ditch any non essential stuff.

+1 for a liteville 301. Mine is very light and the suspension is fine. Although, it doesn't have the same [i]pop[/i] as my Marin Quake. That's a rubbish description, but i can't offer any better 🙂

Carbon is great, but:

1. I'd much rather work as an alu frame welder in Taiwan than laying up carbon in moulds in China, for numerous reasons.
2. Aluminium is generally more robust in real world use (ie better for crashing!)

Get the bike you want, regardless of the material, imo. If you just mentally remove the word "carbon" or "aluminium" from everything and look at it on merit, price, etc you're probably more likely to get the right answer

Id say carbon, but i crashed at the mega and put 2 big gouges/dents in my chainstaty- I dont think a carbon stay wouldve survived that, if you plan to ride big rocky stuff often then id go ally, with carbon wheels

but i crashed at the mega and put 2 big gouges/dents in my chainstaty- I dont think a carbon stay wouldve survived that

I had a bashed seatstay repaired.

Before:
[URL= http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt316/mbails87/Swingarm%20crack/DSC02128.jp g" target="_blank">http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt316/mbails87/Swingarm%20crack/DSC02128.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
After:
[URL= http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt316/mbails87/Swingarm%20crack/DSC02130.jp g" target="_blank">http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt316/mbails87/Swingarm%20crack/DSC02130.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

As above though, a good bike is a good bike. I'd happily buy either material. (current bike is half 'n' half!)

Liteville - albet not the newest model....999 Euro

https://www.bike-components.de/de/Liteville/Rahmenkit-301-Mk10-mit-FOX-RP23-Auslaufmodell-p31149/

Ah - ignore - they've sold them all except a few XS ones.

It sounds like your (alu?) stay didn't survive it!

i wasnt sure either but ive been riding it ever since and its been fine!!

Anyone still grasping on to the notion that carbon is weaker than aluminium is just retarded.

Well, ignorant, I think would be fairer but otherwise, you're correct.

anyone still throwing about insults like 'retarded' is unlikely to know much about anything

i think the fear with carbon is the whole catastrophic failure thing

fwiw ive snapped 2 aluminium and 1 steel frame , ive not owned a carbon one , but I do have carbon bars and seatpost and some LB carbon wheels, ive put a few dents in aluminium frames and kept riding for years on them

Im quite satisfied that they are strong enough to do the job, however im not convinced that carbon stays in particular are as robust when it comes to big sharp impacts as aluminium ones, maybe its an irrational fear and carbon frame reapir certainly seems to be reliable enough

I've no concerns about the material strength of carbon... I DO have concerns about the strength of joins, seams, areas where alloy meets carbon, resins etc. Where the carbon fibre direction changes and gets joined together. It's all these spots where I see cracks.

A bit like where you stick bits of aluminium together. I think they're called welds 🙂 I believe aluminium (and steel, Ti) frames fail at those points quite a lot too...

The difference in frame weights between alu and carbon is going to be a very tiny percentage of the overall weight. You'd feel as much difference by going for lighter wheels and different tyre choice, and save getting a whole new bike.

Stiffness makes a difference though and carbon can have an advantage here, especially for hardtails. But once you add suspension into the mix the performance of the suspension will be so much more important than the frame material as to render the latter irrelevant.

Don't agree with this respectfully.

The frame is as important; especially given you are dangling a moving back end off it. In other words because the suspension performance is integral to the frame quality then it's just as important.

My thoughts are generally: material is nothing without quality of design and production.

All things being equal I prefer the carbon 'feel' to a good Alu.

Looks like I sparked a good debate! Thanks for your input.

What denotes a good or bad carbon frame then? I was wondering about this because the few bikes I've had a short go on (radon slide/bronson/mondraker) haven't felt that nice. The norco sight did feel really nice but I'm half putting that down to the pike and inline.

Don't agree with this respectfully.

The frame is as important; especially given you are dangling a moving back end off it. In other words because the suspension performance is integral to the frame quality then it's just as important.

Fair enough, maybe "irrelevant" was putting it a bit strong, but big aluminium tubes and carbon ones are both pretty stiff. So, if you are going to stick a big hinge in the middle of the frame, I'd be looking at the design of that before worrying too much about whether the rest is carbon.

A good carbon frame for me would be a blend of comfort, liveliness and stiffness.

There is a clear difference between manufacturers versions of carbon, just as there is a difference between nescafe and nespresso. (Not counting the boutique stuff!)

Me and a friend switched Enve M50s and LB wheels between our Turner Czars. Subjectively the LBs just didn't have the spring or spin-up the Enve's had. The LB felt dead. But hey they're both carbon. (Up to you what you want to spend. But there is a difference. )

GF had a cube fs in carbon a few years ago. It exhibited none of the so called benefits of a carbon frame bike.

[quote=faustus]The difference in frame weights between alu and carbon is going to be a very tiny percentage of the overall weight.

I would disagree. A lighter frame is likely the biggest weight saving you can make. For example, going from an aluminium Highball at 1800 grams to a carbon Highball at 1100 grams = 700 grams weight saving. That is roughly 7% of the total weight of the bike.

I do agree going from heavy tyres and wheels to lighter ones could save you close to that (talking about roughly equivalent things here, not going from 2.5" DH tyres to thin 2.0" XC tyres), and that weight is for sure also worthwhile saving, maybe even first over the equivalent weight saving on a frame.

I'm just building a bike that's available in alu, half carbon, and full carbon. I got the alu one, because it's about 1/3d the price, nuff said. But I think it's over 2lbs difference between the all-alu and all-carbon, that's not trivial and certainly not a very tiny percentage.

If you don't care about weight it's ignorable, but then any weight difference is ignorable if you don't care about weight. If you do care, it's pretty huge.

Me and a friend switched Enve M50s and LB wheels between our Turner Czars. Subjectively the LBs just didn't have the spring or spin-up the Enve's had. The LB felt dead.

I've got the LB rims on mine, be interested to see what the enve felt like