Loading…
bwepps wrote:Agreed!
My last 5 or so road bikes have all been carbon including my Diverge Expert. They are wonderful and light bikes, but after a long day (6 hours+) of gravel the carbon feels a bit harsh. I bought the new Specialized Sequoia for exactly this reason (and bigger tire clearance). The Sequoia certainly isn't as light or fast as my Diverge, but it's buttery smooth and compliant. I'm really enjoying the steel frame, carbon fork, 1x11, and SRAM Force Hydro brakes. It's a great bike and I'm really enjoying it. Should be a great tool for the DK200 and some other gravel rides I have scheduled this summer.![]()
1eanda wrote:I really like the 2017 Fairdale Weekender Drop. I ordered it and it was delivered to a local bike shop and
the mechanics were really impressed with the build quality. When I picked up the bike several employees were
researching the Fairdale Bikes website and are interested in purchasing from Fairdale. One of the employees
is seriously considering purchasing the Fairdale Goodship Frame set and building a custom bike.
http://fairdalebikes.com/bikes/2017-weekender-drop-bar/
After my Fairdale Weekender Drop was assembled, I added the following:
Brooks C17 Cambium Saddle
Shimano PD-A530 Pedals
Bontrager BackRack Deluxe L
Two Bontrager RL Water Bottle Cages
![]()
chas wrote:I'm enjoying a stiff bike with compliant seat/and seat post, and of course supple tires at the right PSI. I have a wonderful steel race bike, and while it rides wonderfully, it isn't snappy. nice for a long day in the saddle, not ideal for a zippy 30 minute romp.
As for carbon, I road a aluminum and a carbon GT Grade. The compliance of the carbon bike was amazing - it had 28mm tires on it, but felt like it had 2" tires on it. So cush. But again, not very zippy...
Switching over from my Salsa Casseroll to a DB Haanjo Carbon bike with remarkably similar geometry I think 100% of the difference in feel is negated by switching from 35mm tires to 40mm tires. The only difference I can feel is the thru-axles. Tires and geometry will always make a significantly more important difference.
In a similar vein, this is an example of an aluminum bike being compared with a carbon fiber bike for road use. ~"we could feel the bike immediately after switching, but beyond that we noticed nothing).
hipsteronabike wrote:Switching over from my Salsa Casseroll to a DB Haanjo Carbon bike with remarkably similar geometry I think 100% of the difference in feel is negated by switching from 35mm tires to 40mm tires. The only difference I can feel is the thru-axles. Tires and geometry will always make a significantly more important difference.
In a similar vein, this is an example of an aluminum bike being compared with a carbon fiber bike for road use. ~"we could feel the bike immediately after switching, but beyond that we noticed nothing).
bobknh wrote:
Yup - too bad you can't do "blind testing" on bikes. I bet once you set up identical positions, and run identical tires and wheels, most of us can't tell the difference between bikes. This goes for the "expert" testers as well.
ljsmith wrote:With aluminum frames you pretty much have to use stiff oversized tubes to get the strength needed for a long lasting frame. Any built-in flex in aluminum will just shorten its lifespan.
drwelby wrote:
Not really true, some of flexiest production bikes were aluminum. The Vitus frames would seem suicidal to someone coming from a modern aluminum frame.
ljsmith wrote:
To be honest, especially for road bikes, carbon and aluminum don't feel much different. Carbon CAN be built with much more compliance, but usually they try to make them super stiff for all the wanna be Lance Armstrongs. I did used to have a Giant Carbon OCR1 with flattened chainstays that rode amazingly smooth though. But you can blindfold me and I will definitely be able to tell the difference between an aluminum and a steel or titanium bike. There is a huge difference in ride feel from steel or titanium versus aluminum, especially offroad. This assumes all other components are the same between bikes. With aluminum frames you pretty much have to use stiff oversized tubes to get the strength needed for a long lasting frame. Any built-in flex in aluminum will just shorten its lifespan. Obviously you could put larger tires on an aluminum frame and make it ride smoother.
ljsmith wrote:
What I wrote is true, you just have to comprehend it. I didn't say that you couldn't build a flexy frame with aluminum. I said a flexy aluminum frame will have a much shorter life span, which is why very few aluminum frames are flexy.
DarKris wrote:I actually changed my alloy/carbon fork on my Nashbar to the steel version (Along w. everything else):
![]()
![]()
I instantly noticed the weight, but I also noticed the increased compliance the front end. When I made this bike I picked the carbon fork for looks, but I felt like I couldn't throw the bike around as much.
I also rode the base model of the Sequoia with the steel fork and it made me outgrow my aesthetic dislike for steel. Now to make sure it doesn't rust....
NoCoGreg wrote:Interesting discussion... I recently converted the Dean steel fork on my Torres to a Ritchey CF fork and I felt a huge improvement in the ride due to much less high frequency vibration. My connotation of "compliance" is flex that absorbs shock - not the same as different materials which absorb high frequency vibration.
As for frame materials, IMO the CF frames are far more responsive due to the reduced weight and reduced bottom bracket flex. This is most advantageous while sprinting or out of the saddle climbing/accelerating. Under lighter loads (long rides such as centuries and touring) there is less flex in the bottom bracket and steel performs well.
I own CF, steel, Ti, and aluminum bikes - each of these frame materials has a unique feel. With the same geometry and comparable stiffness I believe the handling/cornering of the bikes would be identical. But alas this isn't the case so each bike has it's own personality. My two favorite bikes to ride are my steel Specialized Allez and my Ti Dean Torres CX/gravel bike, but I'd never consider racing on anything but my CF Tarmac.
bobknh wrote: See my previous comments about the risks of switching forks. I'm glad that your experiment worked out.
bobknh wrote:
I'm glad that switching out forks - metal for carbon - worked out for you. My personal experience in the past, with switching out forks was very mixed. Unless the new fork has exactly the same geometry as your old fork specified by the bike manufacturer, you may effect the handling and stability of the bike. Even if the geometry of the fork is identical, the difference in the flexibility of the fork may cause other issues like high speed undamped oscillations during descents and cross winds. I once built up an old steel race bike and replaced the steel fork with a carbon model to reduce weight, and smooth out road bumps. Big mistake! At any speed over 30 mph, the bike would start to vibrate and wobble uncontrollably. I was fortunate not to crash. My best advice is to be very cautious about changing out forks.
![[smile]](http://cdn.websitetoolbox.com/images/boards/smilies/smile.gif)
NoCoGreg wrote:I own CF, steel, Ti, and aluminum bikes - each of these frame materials has a unique feel. With the same geometry and comparable stiffness I believe the handling/cornering of the bikes would be identical. But alas this isn't the case so each bike has it's own personality. My two favorite bikes to ride are my steel Specialized Allez and my Ti Dean Torres CX/gravel bike, but I'd never consider racing on anything but my CF Tarmac.