|Alum frames with Carbon stays||utxjohne|
Jun 6, 2003 8:02 AM
|So whats the verdict? I am thinking about buying one, but have heard that there are issues with the alum and the carbon together. Am I better off with all Al or all carbon? I already have a steel frame for longer rides.|
|It's a way to jack up the price...||MR_GRUMPY|
Jun 6, 2003 8:13 AM
|Unless you are going to buy a 4 pound Aluminum frame, the ride will be fine without carbon stays.|
Jun 6, 2003 8:19 AM
|I would just try to ride everything you can|
Jun 6, 2003 9:04 AM
|I have an '02 Specialized E-5, lightweight, all aluminum frame. I also have an '03 Orbea Lobular Carbon, lightweight, aluminum frame with carbon seat stays. Geometry is very similar between the two bikes. I got the new bike because they're my team's new sponsor, not because there was anything wrong with the Specialized.
The Orbea *might* be a tiny bit more comfortable, and may handle road shock a tiny bit better. It's also a few ounces heavier. Or it may be simply the placebo effect of a new bike with something different on it. I've only had the bike for a few months, so not enough miles to form any thoughts about long term durability. I view aluminum frames as essentially disposable anyway.
As far as I'm concerned, there certainly isn't enough difference between the two to worry about. I'd pick a bike for reasons other than whether is does or doesn't have carbon stays.
|It is bicycle Darwinism||bigrider|
Jun 6, 2003 9:05 AM
|It started several years ago with aluminum bikes having carbon forks, then later the bikes evolved with carbon seat stays or carbon chain stays, then later they evolved with carbon rear triangles and carbon seatposts, eventually they will evolve by making the main triangle carbon and call the bike a Kestrel or a Trek 5200.
Try the ride out and see if you can feel the difference. Everyone I know that went from straight aluminum to carbon rear triangles claim they can feel the difference.
|I worry about longevity of the glue jobs||geeker|
Jun 6, 2003 9:10 AM
|Haven't heard any negative stories, but the frames haven't been around enough to provide a lot of evidence.|
|I worry about longevity of the glue jobs||utxjohne|
Jun 6, 2003 9:52 AM
|geeker-that's exactly what I have heard. thanks for the input folks.|
Jun 6, 2003 11:02 AM
|It seems to me that current lightweight aluminum frames are so inherently fragile that they're not going to last very long anyway. I don't see the carbon stays or glue joints as the issue, I think any lightweight Al bike will have a short life expectancy.|
|There was a Zinn column on Velonews site||geeker|
Jun 6, 2003 2:11 PM
|Somebody once wrote in asking about ultralight aluminum frames (eg Deda U2). Zinn got a rep from Deda to respond. As I recall, it was pretty sobering: he recommended checking the frame for cracks quite frequently, and didn't give the impression that you should hope for a long life. He also quoted some expected lifetimes, and I remember something like 1000 hours (riding) for carbon/al glue joints (forget the exact context, exposure to sunlight may have been involved).
It was a really interesting item. Probably a couple of months ago, maybe a bit more. Unfortunately, I can't find a URL because the archived Zinn columns are 404.
Jun 14, 2003 5:07 PM
|I upgraded from all aluminum to alluminum with carbon stays. Other thant the stays the frames were fairly comparable. It was a dramatic difference. If longetivity is an issue, buy from a reputable manufacturer that has a lifetime warranty. If it cracks you get a new bike.|| |