Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

The new TCR SL looks great and apparently rides very nicely but not the most aero bike out there, probably not far off the new Madone without the aero bottles.

If you are going Giant why not the Propel SL?
Still pretty light but aero too.
I'd have had a Propel but a bit more than I had to spend.

For me personally, I like like the look of the TCR much more, and the idea of a super light bike intrigues me. However, I do agree that the Propel is probably the faster bike for the riding I would do. Kind of elementary, seeing I have no plans for a new bike for a few years.

blizzard wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:09 pm

For me personally, I like like the look of the TCR much more, and the idea of a super light bike intrigues me. However, I do agree that the Propel is probably the faster bike for the riding I would do. Kind of elementary, seeing I have no plans for a new bike for a few years.

That new TCR looks quite nice.

I’d have a Cervelo R5 over all of these. The way things are headed it remains to be seen if Cervelo will persist with the R5 and S5. Albeit they are so different at the moment it’s hard to see them being merged until a few generations down the track should they converge. They could lose the Soloist though as it seems a bit odd.

Given the prices of these things, how long does a carbon bike last? I have read varying accounts and have never ridden carbon let alone owned one.

DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:15 pm

Given the prices of these things, how long does a carbon bike last? I have read varying accounts and have never ridden carbon let alone owned one.

DS

That’s a difficult question to answer !

You have probably heard this generalisation:
“If you are wanting lightweightedness, Durability, and Economy - pick any 2 but all 3 in combination will never occur”

I suspect that the main problem with Carbon fibre frames in recent years is they are designed for light weight rather than durability.

I also suspect that a quality CF frame made with durability in mind would have a VERY long life, as long as certain pitfalls are avoided - specifically the over-tightening of seatpost and front derailleur clamps and direct impacts to the frame.

I have noticed that some early full-carbon TREK OCLV frames are still in regular use and are about 25 years old.

My CF frame cracked after 12 months but replacement has been fine for 2 years. The mechanic said he always worries about the larger frames with heavier riders. But I have also cracked an aluminium frame after 2 or 3 years if use.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:15 pm

Given the prices of these things, how long does a carbon bike last? I have read varying accounts and have never ridden carbon let alone owned one.

DS

I have a uber-light Canyon Ultimate CF Evo still going at more than 30,000km. And those are not easy kilometres either. It did commute kilometres, took me up and down huge mountains.

It is as good today as it was the day I built up the bike, still runs silently and smoothly. Remember, this frame is designed to be very light, and it still goes.

I know Adrian (one of the Haute Route Lanterne Rouge riders and co-founder of AlpCycles) also has a CF Evo frameset (the SL version) since 2019 when I first saw him riding it, last year in Briançon when I saw him he was still riding the same bike. That thing must have serious kilometres on it and he's a big, strong rider as well.

If these can go fine with our heavy use cases, then you shouldn't be too concerned.




It's nice having alloy wheels on a bike and still being at 6.5kg with all solid reliable components, no weight weenie unreliable stuff. The only thing that has changed is the Canyon bike-type and size sticker has faded from orange to off-white over the years and unfortunately a bike shop managed to make a chip in the handlebar/stem when it was in for the Dura Ace 9100 check/replace.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:15 pm

Given the prices of these things, how long does a carbon bike last? I have read varying accounts and have never ridden carbon let alone owned one.

DS

Fatigue life is generally very good on carbon frame - better than aluminium. Biggest issue is durability, more likely to crack in a crash than metal bikes and also misuse - overtightening of fasteners, loose headsets causing fork damage.

Had more trouble with steel and aluminium cracking and failing personally.
2 broken steel and 2 aluminium.
Carbon can be enabled to ride better with layup and shape and does so whilst light. More aerodynamic, stronger, lighter. What is not to like? It is the best frame material available.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 9:38 am

Had more trouble with steel and aluminium cracking and failing personally.
2 broken steel and 2 aluminium.
Carbon can be enabled to ride better with layup and shape and does so whilst light. More aerodynamic, stronger, lighter. What is not to like? It is the best frame material available.

I still maintain it has a lot too do with how you ride them = smoothness = not throwing them around twisting the damned things when out of the seat, missing potholes, jumping gutters like some riders do. I've had people telling me that I can't ride low spoke count wheels ever since I got back on my bikes at 105+kgs and don't have a problem with them at all and one of my fronts on the Track is a 808 16sp count and it steers like it's on rails when winding up for a sprint and going through the bends of the Annadome.

Yes there can be manufacture flaws in some frames but this is normally found out very early after the sales release and most times is recalled (I said most times) by the manufacturer.

Foo

Given my carbon frameset has 12,300km on it without an issue and I've cracked three aluminium framesets in that time I'm pretty happy with carbon.

My impression is aluminium has a set number of fatigue cycles and will inevitably break at some time, carbon does not. My carbon wheelset and bars have 22,000km on them each without an issue.

Mind you I treat every part of the bike as a consumable. But still, two of the frame issues were manufacturing defects rather than usual wear and tear. The third was absolutely 'way too many fatigue cycles' including some 20,000km on an indoor trainer.

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:16 pm

Given my carbon frameset has 12,300km on it without an issue and I've cracked three aluminium framesets in that time I'm pretty happy with carbon.

My impression is aluminium has a set number of fatigue cycles and will inevitably break at some time, carbon does not. My carbon wheelset and bars have 22,000km on them each without an issue.

Mind you I treat every part of the bike as a consumable. But still, two of the frame issues were manufacturing defects rather than usual wear and tear. The third was absolutely 'way too many fatigue cycles' including some 20,000km on an indoor trainer.

Aluminium has no fatigue limit so it will eventually fatigue and fail. Steel has no fatigue limit as long as the stress is low enough, it does rust though...

blizzard wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:58 pm

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:16 pm

Given my carbon frameset has 12,300km on it without an issue and I've cracked three aluminium framesets in that time I'm pretty happy with carbon.

My impression is aluminium has a set number of fatigue cycles and will inevitably break at some time, carbon does not. My carbon wheelset and bars have 22,000km on them each without an issue.

Mind you I treat every part of the bike as a consumable. But still, two of the frame issues were manufacturing defects rather than usual wear and tear. The third was absolutely 'way too many fatigue cycles' including some 20,000km on an indoor trainer.

Aluminium has no fatigue limit so it will eventually fatigue and fail. Steel has no fatigue limit as long as the stress is low enough, it does rust though...

A better way to put it is that aluminium may not have a fatigue limit, but it has a fatigue memory - every stress cycle weakens the material by a tiny amount, and eventually too many stress cycles accumulate and the material fails.

The working life of aluminium isn't really set to a certain number of stress cycles; the magnitude of those cycles will also affect the lifespan of the components - big stresses will fatigue a component faster than small ones. Trainers are a very good example of high magnitude stress, because the wheels are pretty well anchored (not to mention the back end of the frame being clamped to the trainer), so the frame flexes a lot, especially around the bottom bracket. On the road, the bike is able to move around a lot more, dissipating more of the rider's input energy away from the bottom bracket area, so the stress magnitude is reduced. For an identical frame, under the same rider, one that spends a lot of time on a trainer will wear out faster than one that is only ridden out in the wild.

blizzard wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:58 pm

……..

Aluminium has no fatigue limit so it will eventually fatigue and fail. Steel has no fatigue limit as long as the stress is low enough, it does rust though...

Yes I reclaimed that a lot of steel frames are binned as a result of corrosion, most would probably be frames that are at least 30 yr old.

I’m sure that corrosion in steel bikes is due to diverse contributing factors including the thickness of the tubing, and the way that frame has been stored and used.

I had a 1987 Daccordi road bike which I bought at local tip shop - for ten dollars.
Description as follows :
Forks - fully chrome and pristine as new condition.
Main tubes - patchy surface rust only, unlikely to be of any structural significance.
Seat stays - heavily rusted, looks bad.
Chain stays- extremely rusted with some few small holes in the tubing.
Overall verdict - frame has had it !

Years ago I was given a 1985 Dawes 531 frame. Looked very badly rusted after years of storage in a garden shed close to the beach.
But no perforations !
Was going to renovate it until I found that the stem and seatpost were hopelessly stuck to the frame tubes. Now it sits in the garden slowly rusting gracefully.

In general there are pros and cons with any frame material and longevity and durability is not a given with steel

Thanks for the replies, just curious really. I went for titanium for my dream bike. One day I would like to hop on a carbon bike just to see what it feels like.

As for aluminium, yep, know all about that. Broke 2 frames, both at 21,00KMs. The second one I got replaced under warranty, rode it another 30,000 and recently donated it. Frame was fine and I weigh 100Kg.

Sounds like the usual answer - it depends on the quality of the frame!

I also have a steel frame bike, it is kept in a shed but has a little rust (mainly where the cables rub but I put electric tape on there now). That one has 35,000KMs on the clock and is going fine, looks like it has many more KMs left in it.

DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:45 pm

Thanks for the replies, just curious really. I went for titanium for my dream bike. One day I would like to hop on a carbon bike just to see what it feels like.

I've only ridden one alloy bike, that's my old track bike. So no idea about normal road bike alloy frames, but the carbon ones all just go as you'd expect. Only my old Trek Madone 4.5 feels a bit odd, that one always seemed like it had a bit of flex and high speed descents it didn't like much. The Giant TCR, Canyon and S5, nothing much to note about them.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:45 pm

Thanks for the replies, just curious really. I went for titanium for my dream bike. One day I would like to hop on a carbon bike just to see what it feels like.

I can actually answer this because after my broken Bowman Palace frame debacle I reused all the components on a 2017 Izalco Max carbon frameset so changed from a 7.7kg alloy bike to a 7.5kg carbon bike with every other variable the same pretty much overnight.

Bearing in mind that is a fairly old tech and unsympathetically uncompromising early carbon disc frame the difference between the two was still night and day. I'd summarise the carbon as being a lot less 'buzzy', and easier to ride fast, particularly downhill. The aluminium always made me work a lot harder and hurt me a lot more while doing it.

Having said that the move from tubes at 80PSI to tubeless at 60PSI was a lot more noticeable. And my aluminium framed Trek ALR5 gravel bike using 42mm tyres at 35PSI is like riding a lounge chair in comparison (in a good way). I've actually taken both uphill and downhill tarmac KOMs on the gravel bike at speeds I can't sustain on the road bike despite it being almost 2kg heavier - simply because the road surfaces have been so bad.

Good point re the tyres.
Wider, tubeless and less pressure does make things better as do carbon wheels imo

New Canyon Aeroad CFR

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/wi ... on-aeroad/

Frameset and brakes kit €4500. Quite a nice looking bike.

You look at the peleton in the current tdf and it is almost wall to wall aero bikes. Carbon wheels are uniform and most have a bit of depth. Free speed with that combination
The wider carbon wheels wearing larger tyres are pretty neutral in windy conditions imo. No reason not to go at least 40mm deep and preferably more.

Never see many aero bikes among the top riders in Haute Route however. It's always climbing bikes and shallow depth wheels. Different bikes for different events. Haute Route doesn't have UCI weight limits so you can ride a 5.4kg bike if you want.

Those folk are world tour pro level speed as well it must be said.

Most common bikes I see are:

Trek Emonda
S-Works Tarmac SL6
S-Works Aethos
Canyon Ultimate
Cervelo R5
Cannondale Supersix Evo (the classic lightweight frame)

Last year I saw only 3 S5s, one old one, my Sunweb S5 and a black S5 2020 also from Australia.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 07, 2024 12:43 pm

You look at the peleton in the current tdf and it is almost wall to wall aero bikes. Carbon wheels are uniform and most have a bit of depth. Free speed with that combination
The wider carbon wheels wearing larger tyres are pretty neutral in windy conditions imo. No reason not to go at least 40mm deep and preferably more.

Indeed, teams which have a choice of an aero or climbing bike seem to be riding the aero bike, no matter the parcours. The Canyon teams are not using the Ultimate and the Giant team is only using the Propel, while Vingegaard used the S5 on the Galibier stage. The climbing bikes are giving up 15-20 watts to the aero bikes while their weight advantage on the climbs is only worth around 5 watts.

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 05, 2024 1:05 pm

DavidS wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 04, 2024 11:45 pm

Thanks for the replies, just curious really. I went for titanium for my dream bike. One day I would like to hop on a carbon bike just to see what it feels like.

I can actually answer this because after my broken Bowman Palace frame debacle I reused all the components on a 2017 Izalco Max carbon frameset so changed from a 7.7kg alloy bike to a 7.5kg carbon bike with every other variable the same pretty much overnight.

Bearing in mind that is a fairly old tech and unsympathetically uncompromising early carbon disc frame the difference between the two was still night and day. I'd summarise the carbon as being a lot less 'buzzy', and easier to ride fast, particularly downhill. The aluminium always made me work a lot harder and hurt me a lot more while doing it.

Having said that the move from tubes at 80PSI to tubeless at 60PSI was a lot more noticeable. And my aluminium framed Trek ALR5 gravel bike using 42mm tyres at 35PSI is like riding a lounge chair in comparison (in a good way). I've actually taken both uphill and downhill tarmac KOMs on the gravel bike at speeds I can't sustain on the road bike despite it being almost 2kg heavier - simply because the road surfaces have been so bad.

Sounds like the carbon frames are a bit softer to ride, must have a go one day.

Titanium feels a bit more springy, but the bike has carbon forks and wheels so likely somewhere in between.

DS