[-BB-]

OK, I'll preface this by admitting I HAVE NEVER HAD A CARBON FRAME


I'm in the market for a new aggressive AM (refuse to say endurpo though) and it seems like everything is a carbon 650b. I'll table the "tweener" size discussion bc we've seen it plenty of times already. What I want to know is people's thoughts on carbon vs aluminum.

Personally, though carbon may be lighter and I've seen plenty of those SantaCruz strength tests, I still just don't trust the stuff. I'm not afraid that my carbon bike will snap off some drop. I know it is "strong". I just don't trust it to be durable. I've never had an issue with destroying my aluminum bike during a crash, but I have certainly seen folks destroy a carbon bar/post etc during a crash. You get one deep gouge from a sharp rock and BAM... the part is ruined. CF may be strong but is is not DURABLE.

Another case in point. I was doing a race where everyone piled into the back of a flat-bed truck for a lift to the top. The guy next to me had a CF frame. Well the pedal of the bike next to his was touching his chainstay and by the time we got to the top it had worn a hole in his frame.

I'm also not the kind of person who gets a new frame every two years or so. I tend to keep my frames a good 5 years. I've NEVER had an issue with the frame disintegrating on me though. Sure, pivot bolts might wear a bit, but every bike has those.


I also read an interview with the owner of Durango Bikes and he summed it up well.
" So if you look at the longevity of epoxy there are a lot of things that can challenge its longevity of which includes exposure to temperature (hot or cold), sun (UV), vibrational stress, and other physical forces can break down the chemical bonds of the epoxy and thereby weaken the frame. I assume there is a reason why Specialized S Works Enduro priced at $9,300 uses Aluminum rear ends and not carbon, if it was “just as strong”? How come there are all sorts of protective shields required for carbon frames? Why does the Trek Remedy 9.9 use an aluminum chainstay on their carbon bike? Why do manufacturer’s have to put stricter caveats on their carbon warranties and crash replacements? Specialized even has a weight limit on their composite stuff…rock crushers are not welcome to their brand. Listen, if you are in the market for a new bike every two years and want to buy a frame that rapidly depreciates then CF is a great material for you. That is not the market DBC is after…we want to offer the highest quality, highest value, and best performing bike and we didn’t feel we could offer that with carbon fiber."


I guess that's why about the only bike out there that is appealing to me is the Banshee Spitfire (and Rune).
Good 'ol Aluminum with a 26in wheel option. Thank you very much!!

So what are your thoughts/experiences?

 

[TrumbullHucker]

staying with aluminum for alooong time... your shuttling story is one of the reasons

 

[johnbryanpeters]

I still would not buy crabon for exactly the reasons you cite.

 

[CBJ]

I have been really unlucky with both my carbon frames. One hit in a rock garden would have been a big problem for a alu frame too and the impact was repairable easier than repairing alu. The other other frame I think alu would not have suffered but again the impact damage was repairable but I got a cheap replacement from the.

If you are on any kind of budget I would and the bike you are looking at has a alu version I would rather go alu frame and then carbon wheelset and save on rotational weight.

 

[Nick]

Aluminum frame here too.
I am considering some carbon rims.

 

[Josef]

I have had both. I am not worried about the durability of my carbon DH frame at all. Its a Wilson though so its sort of a beast. I also have a carbon sb66 that doesnt feel like it has much in terms of wall thickness. That one I would be more worried about sharp direct impacts. The moral of the story is that if you drop weight you will drop durability whether its carbon or aluminum. Keeping durability the same you can drop weight however by going carbon.

While it might be somewhat new to mountain bike, carbon is not really some new wonder material that was just invented. If I were you I would pick a frame that you like weight/geometry/ suspension design wise and then worry about its material last. Any material can break with the right/wrong impact to it.

 

[demo 9]

Broke both of mine

 

[jackalope]

Being a carbon based life form, I am quite fond of carbon.

Actually, I'm fine with either (and have had both), but I do think it can be more challenging to ensure proper quality control with carbon frames. Not impossible of course, but it can be a real issue IMO.

In the end, I place more emphasis on a bike's geometry, suspension design, details like cable routing/drop out design/ease of maintenance, company reputation than I do frame material.

 

[ianjenn]

Look at the Megatrail if you want an AL option in 650B.....

 

[SDet]

Look at the Megatrail if you want an AL option in 650B.....

Or 26

 

[iRider]

Although totally unrideable, mid-stroke wallowing and generally inferior to any simple single pivot bike, you should have a look at what Intense offers in aluminum. Made in 'merica too.

 

[dan-o]

I beat the crap out of my nomadc; park days, scraped the hell out of the lower pivots and stays on rocks/logs etc.
No problems with that frame and I expect the same from my new nomad.
SC is about the only company I trust for carbon frames though and i wouldn't touch any of the no-name shit coming out of china direct.

I've broken 3 steel frames (to be fair 2 of those were bridgestone mb zips, and if you rode those hard they broke), an IH alu mainframe, an alu road frame and several rear ends on turners in the past.

I like the carbon and fully trust it in applications where it was sensibly designed.

 

[kickstand]

I bit the carbon bullet this year. We were lucky enough to join a team and get a nice deal on carbon Santa Cruz V-10's. I'll throw a little extra protective tape on them, and be careful when shuttling, beyond that, I am hopeful that our warranty is good enough for us

 

[no skid marks]

Canfield Balance ;-)

Pedal would've eaten into ally frame possibly as quick. Depends on the carbon layup etc. my Lahar was tougher against scratches and gouges than any ally frame I've ever had. And repairable if needed.

Carbon is the best bike building material. The execution of its use and design is the gamble we all take when trusting a manufacturer. Same gamble for all materials, just seems worse with carbon. Weighteeeniedom is the curse of frame longevity and durability. Convenient for manufacturers though.

 

[blindboxx2334]

pre-production yeti, anyone?

 

[SDet]

"pre-production" yeti, anyone?

Fixed

 

[jackalope]

the carbon bullet

Whoa, just for a second, I read that •really• wrong.

 

[djjohnr]

How many of you would buy a USED carbon frame?

 

[amishmatt]

The owner of Durango Bikes is a fucking douchebag, he's just out to sell his own bikes.

Buy a new Spitfire. You liked you old one, right? The V2s are fucking awesome, and aluminum.

 

[Uncle Cliffy]

Sounds like you've already decided @-BB-

So, what are we going to talk about?

 

[jackalope]

Sounds like you've already decided @-BB-

So, what are we going to talk about?

My vote is for siracha ketchup.

 

[kazlx]

My next AM bike will most likely be carbon.

 

[tomasis7]

go for banshee !

personally, im not very tempted for carbon. for road bikes, Id go Steel or alu. Many said that road carbon frames wont last long!

i would focus on price and features. Generally alu is cheaper!

 

[Trasselkalle]

To be fair, if we'd talk road or cyclocross bikes, carbon adds ride comfort if used appropriately and can absolutely be a good pick for ultra/gravel riding. That's pretty far OT though, and I do agree with the quire: alu is simply much better bang-for-the-bucks and even has advantages in some areas.

Using alu in exposed areas such as the rear triangle doesn't mean carbon is inferior as a whole though. With the right geo and well designed front triangle, I could understand going that way. I'm still more likely to stay with all-alu frame though, but no stranger to mixing in carbon wheels, seatpost or handlebar. And yeah, I'd routinely swap them out after a while rather than try to wait until I'd start seeing wear. I like trying new things out anyway.

 

[tomasis7]

i think that manufacturing of road frame is good indicator to see how far material can be pushed. Road aluminium frames are fairly light without losing stiffness in dropping weight. FS frames are more complex .. and making a carbon front triangle is good idea if it doesn't add costs that much.

the way Banshee makes frames as using burly tubes, it inspires confidence riding such frame in harsh environment.

 

[Udi]

I've had both and both can be good, but not all companies are good at aluminum - carbon seems to be the saving grace for those (Intense, Evil, Yeti, etc).

So far I've also found that aluminum frames are stiffer, particularly in torsional swingarm rigidity. I'm positive this is due to poor carbon designs rather than material properties, but the stiffest DH frames I'm aware of are still aluminum. (edit - actually, the Pivot carbon frames I've tried have been real stiff, it's obviously possible but for some reason a lot of bikes aren't)

Shuttle and direct crash impacts are definitely far more damaging to carbon frames (and damage can propagate deeper than what is visible), which disadvantages it slightly for DH unless 100% of your riding is lift accessed or not vehicle shuttled. I think this makes carbon more appropriate for enduro where the frame is less likely to take direct impacts from other bikes, and probably less likely to see crashes also, as you have to go home to your family and buy your kids ipads etc.

Although totally unrideable, mid-stroke wallowing and generally inferior to any simple single pivot bike, you should have a look at what Intense offers in aluminum. Made in 'merica too.

Don't forget they also crack and often come misaligned, award winning features that you don't often get with inferior Taiwanese frames.

 

[iRider]

Don't forget they also crack and often come misaligned, award winning features that you don't often get with inferior Taiwanese frames.

Just wondering if you have any current evidence or just re-iterating things from back in the day? There don't seem to be many complaints about these issues lately.
All manufacturers have/had issues. Banshee had its fair share of broken frames back in the day, then the bushing issues but they seem to have turned it around. Remember Turner and the heat treatment issues? I personally have seen (in real life, not the internet) broken frames from Scott, Transition, Giant, Specialized, Cube, Banshee, Raleigh, K2, Iron Horse, Cannondale, and others. And yes, also Intense (not mine).
And FWIW: none of the Intense frames I own is misaligned.

 

[Udi]

Just wondering if you have any current evidence or just re-iterating things from back in the day?

Most brands suffer failures at some stage, but virtually all the other brands you listed sorted out their issues and have far lower failure counts. The current or last generation of Demo, Gambler, TR450/TR500, Legend, Sunday etc were all quite durable bikes in my experience, I haven't seen many broken.

The last M9 frame I saw was cracked in 4 different places and the owner had stripped the paint from the rear triangle so he could "keep track of the cracks" in his words. The first frame I saw break in person when I started riding was an M1. Since that, I've watched the M3, M6, and M9 all break at various rates more than any other brand I've seen. The M9 has been the best so far but still not great. My housemate broke his 951 when we were in Whistler too, although I'm pretty sure there weren't any 951s that didn't break so at least they were consistent with that frame.

For comparison, the Sunday I was riding at the same time lasted 6 years under me (2 years worth of lift accessed riding), followed by 2 more years under the guy I sold it to, before it got run into and crushed on the back of a truck. The swingarm still lives on with yet another owner (local pinner - see below). Yeah that's a dent and bend in the seatstay, I put them there in a crash on detroit rock city in 2012 - it's lasted 3 more years even with those.

 

[iRider]

Most brands suffer failures at some stage, but virtually all the other brands you listed sorted out their issues and have far lower failure counts.

That is what I am not so sure about because there doesn't seem to be an independent source for this type of info.
The 951 and the Tracer had issues with this machined yoke at the chainstay cracking. Intense replaced those under warranty.
I guess I am just lucky then with my frames. Some of them are way beyond what I expected to get out of them. Especially the Socom frame from 2007 ("disposable", FRO frame), my only DH bike for 4 seasons with lots of riding and 4-5 races a year, since then still used frequently besides M9, surprised me as many seemed to have cracked theirs. I am fairly light and ride smooth, maybe this helps. And I am also slow.

 

[-BB-]

I haven't had any issues with my M6 after years of riding. I also haven't had any issues with my Banshee Spitfile V1 bushings. In fact, the Spitty has been my main ride for 4 yerars now and I've only had to swap bushings out ONCE.

Still though, Im drooling over the V2 spitfire and that will probably be my next bike.

 

[kidwoo]

Bike Industry: "Carbon! It's different this time! Try it now. No really.......totally different. Seriously, try it now"