ALUMINIUM VS CARBON FIBRE

[warthog1]

A big advantage of that carbon has over the other major frame materials is that it can be manufactured in such a wide variety of shapes and profiles. This allows larger profiles at tube junctions such as the head tube and bottom bracket area resulting in some serious rigidity improvements.
It is not without its faults though and is susceptible to impact damage, it therefore needs to be treated with care. I'm getting mine insured given my riding record

Ahem, can be done with metals as well... LINK

Thanks, interesting link. That must be how they get some of the eliptical tube profiles in aluminium?
You dont see the range of shapes in aluminium that you do in CF and I've yet to see any of the huge bottom bracket profiles that are becoming more common in CF.
Aluminium has been around for quite a while now and I assume that manufacturing process has too. Perhaps it has some limitations as far as what shape is achieveable with a reasonable thickness of material.

[warthog1]

Other materials just don't have that high-tech appeal so they would have difficulty with sales. "Oh...they should have done it in carbon which so much better looking, lighter, stiffer, more vibration damping, more durable and doesn't fatigue...". Who says pro-rider marketing doesn't work?

Nobody you need to ride a modern CF roadie.
Personally I think my S5 is not good looking, but as soon as you ride, it is clear that it is function over form. It is stiffer than anything else I have ridden. The only bike that comes close is my P2C, not exactly good good looking either.
The bike companies do use the protour as marketing, why else do they spend the money it costs them. It is a formula that has been around for years with motorised sport also.
Racing does lead to development that improves the product though and most of those points you have dismissed in your post are true, cant describe carbon as more durable though , don't knock it around.

[Nobody]

Nobody you need to ride a modern CF roadie.

Nah. I don't need my durability and frugality belief system polluted by such things. I'm happy riding one of the heaviest CX/road bikes known to man.

Personally I think my S5 is not good looking, but as soon as you ride, it is clear that it is function over form. It is stiffer than anything else I have ridden. The only bike that comes close is my P2C, not exactly good good looking either.
The bike companies do use the protour as marketing, why else do they spend the money it costs them. It is a formula that has been around for years with motorised sport also.
Racing does lead to development that improves the product though and most of those points you have dismissed in your post are true, cant describe carbon as more durable though , don't knock it around.

I put it in inverted commas because I was describing some carbon lovers' thought process rather than reality.

[warthog1]

I put it in inverted commas because I was describing some carbon lovers' thought process rather than reality.

You are stuck in a steel time warp It is reality.

Well sort of, maybe a little bit true

[clackers]

Nobody you need to ride a modern CF roadie.

I've got one of those and a steel CX (which is the climber of the two thanks to 34/36).

Mixed marriages are so interesting!

[Snoopy007]

Seeing as your new to cycling really alot of the stuff i've flicked through here is just bias crap.

Unless you show specific reasons as to why it is rubbish, your statement doesn't tell us much.

...I mean yes carbon is a better metal, more durable light weight etc.

Can I assume the text in bold is a typo?
Can you give us more specifics as to why carbon is more durable in a bike application? We debate topics and try to learn from each other if possible, so specific examples and links to studies would be beneficial.

Otherwise the only thing is carbon is slightly stronger.

Carbon is generally stronger for its weight than Al, but since road bikes are made to a particular strength (depending on design and application) carbon has a weight advantage, but not usually a strength advantage as well. Some might say the lightest carbon road bikes may even be weaker since the designers made them as light as they could get away with and so may have rider weight limits. You could also say the same about other materials. It really comes down to the individual design.

To be honest i'd stay away from titanium and manganese... get carbon or aluminium.

Yeah, I'd stay away from manganese too.

I didn't use the direct quote, but if you go to the first page there's A table about how good certain metals are based on certain characteristics e.g weight, durability. The table shows titanium clearly being better than any of the other metals with aluminium being the worst which i believe is clearly not true.

As for the carbon fibre, i'm not a scientist who creates it so i can't tell you anything about the particle layout if that's what you want =P But what i mean is that carbon fibre is better in that it is more durable (it is a stronger metal and would last longer). It's lighter (this is just overall, like others have said, if you compare high quality alum to bottom quality carbon often the aluminium can be lighter), and it reduces road buzz. That's why carbon is a "better" metal to use. Like i said though i use aluminium and I'm very happy, i don't find road buzz to be a problem or anything so really I think the only point to get carbon fibre is if you will be cycling almost daily, entering races, because carbon fibre is more expensive.

Like i said im still new to road cycling, just trying to help out the best i can =)

[Nobody]

I didn't use the direct quote, but if you go to the first page there's A table about how good certain metals are based on certain characteristics e.g weight, durability.

The table shows titanium clearly being better than any of the other metals with aluminium being the worst which i believe is clearly not true.

For durability or overall?

As for durability, if you did a google search for cracked frames, I think it would be a close race between carbon and Al. This might be because there are more Al frames out there though. You can crack any type of frame material if it is built too light or poorly for the application or weight of rider. It is just the lightest bikes are often Al and carbon and so they are usually the ones to crack more often. Carbon has the added durability problems of strike or scratch resistance. It is also generally built the lightest of all as the most weight-critical applications for racing bikes are almost exclusively carbon these days.

The graph above is the very learned opinion of Zinn who writes many tech articles and has a degree in physics (IIRC). I wouldn't bother posting it unless I thought his opinion had some merit. Many don't, but opinions vary with differing experiences. Things are always changing, so may be even less accurate in five years time. I know Al frames used to crack quite often many years ago, but not as much these days IMO. I have 4 Al frames here. None have cracked so far. However they don't get ridden too much either.

Steel and Ti have endurance limits, below which they can be flexed infinitely (for practical purposes) without cracking. Neither Al or carbon can make this boast. Often Ti and especially steel are built for heavier duty applications where more strength is built in and so crack less for this reason. I know my steel cyclocross bike is very unlikely to crack due it its heavy build for my weight. For high distance applications like touring with added weight, you'll find most touring bikes are still made from steel. However, I'm sure there are plenty of almost paper-thin tubed lightweight steel bikes that do crack though.

[toppity]

looking at that I think I'll get myself a Segal Magnesium frame.

[Lazyweek]

That's why carbon is a "better" metal to use.

I suggest you go and check out the periodic table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_t ... nmetals%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Have a look where carbon (C) sits on the periodic table, it's a nonmetal.