CF vs Aluminium Frame (mtb buying advice)
Discussion
Me and some mates recently rode a few of YT Industries bikes at one of their rolling circus events at the Forest of Dean not so long ago, now, I've never ridden a high end bike before and my current ride is a Voodoo Canzo full suspension setup with tubeless Maxxis Ardent tyres. Of the bikes I had a go on the one that won't get out of my head was the 29" Capra CF Pro, such a beautiful bike, extremely well balanced, agile and gave me so much confidence to push it on the trails, My Voodoo feels like a dinosaur in comparison.
Now I'm seriously looking at buying one but I'm not sure if the extra £1k cost and hassle of a carbon fibre frame is worth it over the Aluminium, will I even notice any difference? I'd also be super wary about scratching the CF. In terms of use, it would get used at least once or twice a week and there are plans afoot to go away to Spain next year with the bikes.
Now I'm seriously looking at buying one but I'm not sure if the extra £1k cost and hassle of a carbon fibre frame is worth it over the Aluminium, will I even notice any difference? I'd also be super wary about scratching the CF. In terms of use, it would get used at least once or twice a week and there are plans afoot to go away to Spain next year with the bikes.
I work with CF everyday and don't rate composite MTB. Its all about the bragging rights.
Stick to Aluminium or Titanium as you wont be repairing it as much when you come off and hit something. Carbon is more hassle than its worth.
Road bikes I accept are better with CF as they don't take the battering MTB's do.
Just my opinion.
Stick to Aluminium or Titanium as you wont be repairing it as much when you come off and hit something. Carbon is more hassle than its worth.
Road bikes I accept are better with CF as they don't take the battering MTB's do.
Just my opinion.
I've had my Jeffsy CF Pro for almost 3 years now, with zero problems.
I've used it on DH trails and it's put up with my cack-handed landings and crashes with no (obvious) signs of damage.
If you are worried about cosmetic scratches, then something like an Isofran film would protect it.
This has been done to death, but every laboratory comparison I've seen shows th carbon frame as stronger/more resilient than the alu.
My decision was to go for carbon, and accept the quite low cost of a replacement frame from YT if the worst came to the worst.
I read a german bike forum with a very busy YT section, and talk of replacement frames is almost non-existent.
I've used it on DH trails and it's put up with my cack-handed landings and crashes with no (obvious) signs of damage.
If you are worried about cosmetic scratches, then something like an Isofran film would protect it.
This has been done to death, but every laboratory comparison I've seen shows th carbon frame as stronger/more resilient than the alu.
My decision was to go for carbon, and accept the quite low cost of a replacement frame from YT if the worst came to the worst.
I read a german bike forum with a very busy YT section, and talk of replacement frames is almost non-existent.
Carbon vs Aluminium also depends upon the quality of the frame made from each material; a cheap carbon frame can lose its weight and stiffness advantage over a quality aluminium frame for example so you need to buy carbon that is well put together.
What type of riding are you doing? Enduro or Downhill won't necessarily benefit from a good quality carbon bike in the same way a Cross Country rider would. The former can get away with a heavier bike that is not so skittish; especially over very technical terrain.
A high quality carbon bike made for Cross Country or Trail is generally lighter and stiffer - this means faster and more immediately responsive. My 9.5kg carbon KTM 29er is an XC bike that is incredibly fast to accelerate and turns in and handles according to the slightest movement from the rider and I love it on less technical terrain. It definitely feels faster uphill too. So carbon there is, indeed, great.
But on very technical terrain, I prefer a heavier, less stiff bike with a bit more flex and forgiveness. So aluminium is best suited, in my personal opinion.
Both materials are reasonably durable, but again, quality does come into play and some are better than others.
Still, in the end, will you see a significant advantage using carbon? For XC or Trail racing, I'd say yes. Not for Enduro or Downhill. If not racing? Then probably no significant advantage in all cases really. If you have the coin for good carbon, then it is nice. But it isn't going to be an issue at all going down the aluminium route on a tighter budget.
For road bikes, I'd always go carbon, there the stiffness alone makes it worth it for speed and less wasted energy.
What type of riding are you doing? Enduro or Downhill won't necessarily benefit from a good quality carbon bike in the same way a Cross Country rider would. The former can get away with a heavier bike that is not so skittish; especially over very technical terrain.
A high quality carbon bike made for Cross Country or Trail is generally lighter and stiffer - this means faster and more immediately responsive. My 9.5kg carbon KTM 29er is an XC bike that is incredibly fast to accelerate and turns in and handles according to the slightest movement from the rider and I love it on less technical terrain. It definitely feels faster uphill too. So carbon there is, indeed, great.
But on very technical terrain, I prefer a heavier, less stiff bike with a bit more flex and forgiveness. So aluminium is best suited, in my personal opinion.
Both materials are reasonably durable, but again, quality does come into play and some are better than others.
Still, in the end, will you see a significant advantage using carbon? For XC or Trail racing, I'd say yes. Not for Enduro or Downhill. If not racing? Then probably no significant advantage in all cases really. If you have the coin for good carbon, then it is nice. But it isn't going to be an issue at all going down the aluminium route on a tighter budget.
For road bikes, I'd always go carbon, there the stiffness alone makes it worth it for speed and less wasted energy.
My 2p.
Alu is cheaper.
Carbon costs more.
When it comes to Trail Centre posturing, expensive beats less-expensive.
That's pretty much it.
If you care about that, then buy a bike that doesn't have a Carbon version, you might hear "Errr, is that what an Alu Nomand looks like" you won't hear "Look at the state of that Commencal, yeah it's Alu".
Alu is cheaper.
Carbon costs more.
When it comes to Trail Centre posturing, expensive beats less-expensive.
That's pretty much it.
If you care about that, then buy a bike that doesn't have a Carbon version, you might hear "Errr, is that what an Alu Nomand looks like" you won't hear "Look at the state of that Commencal, yeah it's Alu".
Coolbanana said:
Both materials are reasonably durable, but again, quality does come into play and some are better than others.
Still, in the end, will you see a significant advantage using carbon? For XC or Trail racing, I'd say yes. Not for Enduro or Downhill. If not racing? Then probably no significant advantage in all cases really. If you have the coin for good carbon, then it is nice.
I have a hard tail Carbon for XC and it's significantly better than and Al hard tail (also significant more expensive). It's lighter, stiffer under pedaling forces but the rear has 12mm of vertical compliance.Still, in the end, will you see a significant advantage using carbon? For XC or Trail racing, I'd say yes. Not for Enduro or Downhill. If not racing? Then probably no significant advantage in all cases really. If you have the coin for good carbon, then it is nice.
For full sus I'd suggest the only carbon benefit is weight reduction.
WestyCarl said:
I have a hard tail Carbon for XC and it's significantly better than and Al hard tail (also significant more expensive). It's lighter, stiffer under pedaling forces but the rear has 12mm of vertical compliance.
For full sus I'd suggest the only carbon benefit is weight reduction.
FS can benefit from the stiffness too for XC; switch between soft suspension and zero suspension, so very stiff, at the flick of a lever on your handlebars. The difference is night and day for acceleration over fast terrain where suspension isn't really necessary. For full sus I'd suggest the only carbon benefit is weight reduction.
For those who feel carbon is just posturing, for many, it can be - depends if you are able to benefit from the advantages carbon brings or not. If you are fast enough to be able to tell the difference, then carbon is definitely better in racing or even just Strava timed rides. Depends upon how you ride, where you ride, how often you ride really. I do circa 350 - 400km per week, alternating between XC and Trail. For XC, my times have improved using carbon bikes. Trail, I like the flex and give of aluminium.
Exactly, you can save or add weight on both a carbon or Alu bike, it's just that the carbon bike starts out lighter. 
I currently have an Alu 140mm 27.5 FS bike that weighs 14.5kg without pedals, my next bike with be a 150mm 29 FS bike which will be a good kilo or more lighter. Along with the carbon frame, it'll have carbon wheels, bar and cranks.
I currently have an Alu 140mm 27.5 FS bike that weighs 14.5kg without pedals, my next bike with be a 150mm 29 FS bike which will be a good kilo or more lighter. Along with the carbon frame, it'll have carbon wheels, bar and cranks.
I've ridden bikes since the days of 120gram fred salmon bars and the only thing I've ever broken was a yt tues carbon front triangle. Normal uplift type use from a ten stone steady rider. I think there are differences in feel and can see why some might prefer carbon but would only buy carbon new and sell when warranty was done. Yt were excellent with warranty.
Sa Calobra said:
Carbon road, alu off road all day long.
You will easily wipe out any sort of advantage changing tyres, mud on trail etc etc etc.
Why do people buy carbon mountain bikes?
UK riding weather an trails aren't kind cosmetically.
100% re road. I raced 531P steel originally as a Junior in the late 80's, then a Vitus aluminium bike that while much lighter, flexed horribly. I followed that up with a Trek carbon with Campagnolo C Record group-set in the 90's and was much happier, stiffness of the steel and weight of the aluminium. I did have an aluminium Cannondale and Dura Ace combo for awhile in the 2000's that I liked, comfortable bike. Now I ride a Bianchi carbon for road - a middle of the road bike but given I don't do much road nowadays, it is fine. I might upgrade the wheels at some point, not sure. You will easily wipe out any sort of advantage changing tyres, mud on trail etc etc etc.
Why do people buy carbon mountain bikes?
UK riding weather an trails aren't kind cosmetically.
I love my FS carbon-frame MTB though - and its carbon rims, handlebars, stem, seat-post and seat rails.
Super-light. Very little flex. Notably faster over less technical terrain. Awesome handling. My previous Scott carbon hardtail was nowhere near as enjoyable to ride, so it is about the whole bike and geometry, not just one part that makes the major difference. I have ridden various aluminium-framed XC bikes over the years and liked them all too. Still, the carbon bike is like a McLaren 720 vs 911C2...both great to drive, the former being more precise, a little more thrilling.
My bike is more 'skittish' no question for my level - you need to have a pretty high skill level to get the most from it and I personally do not have the skill to ride it as I should on very technical terrain, I slow down. I prefer my aluminium 160mm suspension eMTB for that. Still, I am improving - fitness is pretty much there or thereabouts - well, hugely better this year anyway, speed is there in bursts, but need to work on bike skills.
Mud isn't something I encounter often where I ride. It is more sandy and loose stones over hard rocky terrain. Both me and bike look like we've been in a dust storm after our daily 35-50km ride rather than muddy, even in Winter. Stone chips are far more likely to cause cosmetic damage but we don't buy MTB's to always look good, we buy them to ride and it is par for the course that they will show wear over time.
I see riders every weekend on expensive carbon bikes that they are clearly only using once or twice a week but hey, if they can afford it, great, even a relatively unfit rider can appreciate a light-weight bike over a Halford's bike, even if the latter is all they truly need - much like no-one needs a Rolex over a Seiko or a 911 over a Golf R.
edit to add: The oldest bike in my garage is my 20yr old Giant ATX MTB, aluminium. It was my first MTB and still serves me well, even though no longer in favour as my first choice ride.
Edited by Coolbanana on Monday 17th June 16:41
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff