Steel bikes with carbon forks? (How much more durable than all-carbon?)

[mariposa]

Hi there,

Newbie question from someone who is only just getting acquainted with the different bike frame materials!

I've been lusting after all-carbon frames...and have liked a lot of the ones I've recently tried (especially the Specialized Ruby). I ride hills/rough roads, and love how the carbon dampens the ride jitters.

But then, just for kicks, I tried a STEEL bike today that has a carbon fork. It had a *very* nice ride! so I would love to try some others. You gals know of other bike models that are steel with carbon forks? (The one I tried today was the Bianchi Imola - I didn't care for the geometry - too much reach for my short torso - but *loved* the ride.)

Here's a related question. How true is it that all-carbon bikes are more fragile/breakable while steel bikes are more durable? I guess I am hearing that everywhere, but want to know how important this is. If I ride hills all the time, what are my chances over say 5 years of irreperably damaging an all-carbon bike versus a steel bike? Are there particular carbon manufacturers who are known for creating more durable bikes (or replacing them after crashes)?

The grumpy guy in the bike store really doesn't like carbon.

Thanks in advance

Mariposa

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

I just ordered a custom steel bike with a carbon fork which will be ready in 5-6 months. My current bike is all steel.

Any carbon tube on your bike frame that gets hit in a collision can easily be compromised to the point where it needs replacing. Bent/dented carbon cracks and becomes useless. Bent/dented steel tubes can more easily be repaired. An all carbon bike will usually not fair as well in a collision as a steel bike.

That said, carbon bikes are way lighter and will be easier to go fast. A steel bike can get you up the steepest hills, though, if you have wide range gearing. Steel is really comfy over long distances.
I think overall a steel bike will outlast a carbon bike by many years. But if speed is your goal then all carbon is a good choice. It *is* often more expensive than steel bikes.

Because most people are looking for speed when they choose carbon, most pre-made carbon bikes are made in an aggressive racing geometry- not as comfy for long mileage or touring. Notice how you don't see carbon touring bikes on the market. I'm not sure how or to what extent they can make "custom" carbon bikes or if they make them with relaxed geometry.
Steel is easier to make a custom bike fit exactly to your particular body proportions and measurements and your desired posture. Also, steel bikes already come in many geometries: racing, touring, hybrid, etc.

Aside from all this....If you like riding on rough gravel back country roads, you will want a bike that can take something a bit wider/sturdier than 23mm racing tires. Wider tires will also give you a smoother ride. I ride 770 x 28c tires on my steel bike and I ride really rough gravel roads sometimes, even on cow pasture paths, with no flats.

[mimitabby]

there are lots of steel bikes out there with carbon forks (Bianchi makes them)
Carbon is great for racing, but for those of us that just want to have a nice ride, STEEL is REAL!

[mimitabby]

Carbon is a lot more fragile than steel. Imagine if you will the difference between crashing a steel bike and a carbon bike. steel does two things that carbon doesn't.
#1 steel bends. Carbon splinters! You might be able to have the shop
bend your steel frame back; or reweld it; but the carbon? you can't even recycle it!

#2 steel absorbs vibration; it has mass. This makes a big difference.
I actually have a steel fork and I was very surprised to find that it was a smoother ride than my old steel bike which had a carbon fork.

did you see the recent thread started by Flyby about her carbon handlebars?

[Skierchickie]

My friend has a Lemond (a Zurich, I think) that I think is steel with carbon fork, seatstays & chainstays. It's a beauty, and not much weight difference from my all-carbon fiber Trek 5200. It's possible that the main triangle is aluminum, but I'm pretty sure she said it was steel. She loves it.

I've never crashed my 5200, so I can't really say. So far (I think its a 2003 that I got in August of 2002 - I'd have to check, but didn't ride much for a couple of those years) so good. No problems. My DH has the same road bike, and also a Trek Team Time Trial (all c.f.) and an all-carbon fiber mtn bike (which he has gone over the handlebars on, etc, multiple times), and my mtb has carbon bars, rear triangle, seatpost, etc. We've never had any problems with any of them. Maybe we've been lucky, but I think if you take care of it you'd be fine. Possible exceptions would be 1) crashing, 2) a flaw in that particular frame, or 3) lesser quality bike (I wouldn't trust the Walmart carbon fiber bike).

Have fun shopping!

[7rider]

Here's a related question. How true is it that all-carbon bikes are more fragile/breakable while steel bikes are more durable? I guess I am hearing that everywhere, but want to know how important this is. If I ride hills all the time, what are my chances over say 5 years of irreperably damaging an all-carbon bike versus a steel bike? Are there particular carbon manufacturers who are known for creating more durable bikes (or replacing them after crashes)?

The grumpy guy in the bike store really doesn't like carbon.

Two words:
Metal.
Fatigue.

Another word:
Rust.

Those are traits of steel that you will never find in carbon (the exception being 953, which is stainless steel, I believe, and resolves the rust issue). Does that make steel LESS durable than carbon?? (rhetorical question)

Carbon is incredibly durable. Don't think of it as glorified plastic. Sailboats have masts made of that stuff. Reeeally strong.
That said, carbon is generally not repairable - you break it, it's toast.

All things made by mankind have a useable lifespan. Metal will break down. Carbon will break down. If you take reasonable care of your bike and aren't beating up on it - racing it, riding 20K a year, whatever, I don't think there's any reason to just go with the bike that you can afford, that fits you, and that you enjoy riding. That could be carbon, steel, ti, aluminum, or anything else.

And that guy at your LBS?? Two more words: Retro. Grouch.

[mariposa]

You gals have been so helpful, so far!

I've found what has helped me the most has been to just visit as many shops as possible, try different rides and absorb the varying advice/opinions I get.

I neglected to mention that I do have a steel bike now...it's a retro Terry bike...very durable, just wayyyyyy too heavy and under-geared for all the time I spend in hills. I also do triathlons. What I'm seeking now is to replace the Terry with just *one* bike that will take care of *all* of my needs: Hilly rides; group rides; centuries; clip-on aerobars for triathlons. (I'll prolly keep the Terry, put fenders on it and use it as a commuter...)

The bikes in the shops...the first thing I've done is to take them up into the hills! The carbon bikes have been by far the most fun to "climb" on. I've tended to like the carbon bikes that have slack-ish geometry. The Specialized Ruby is a good example. It feels like a fabulous double-century type of bike, but I can tell it certainly feels "fast" as well for triathlon purposes. Not the very most aerodynamic of the ones I've tried, but that's not my primary criteria for an all-around bike. (I also liked the Orbea Onix Dama - has similar, semi-slack geometry.)

Steel...I'd been avoiding that just 'cause it's what I already have. And I didn't like the first 2, all-steel bikes I tried in shops. But from the Bianchi I could tell that steel is a way different animal now than it was when my Terry was made...There is some relatively light steel out there so I'll give it more consideration...whether or not it has a carbon fork.

So: Anyone have recommendations for ALL-STEEL bikes to try in the shops? (Price range about $2000 and under.)

Mariposa

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

Might be hoping for too much to find one bike that does it all well.

My impulse would be to look for a touring type bike to do centuries in, and then also have a fasty triathlon bike.
You could have major triple gears on the touring bike which would be good for long hilly rides, and use the fasty bike for club road rides.
You could commute on the more comfy upright posture touring bike. Or use your old Terry for commuting, as you said.

[Zen]

Two words:
Metal.
Fatigue.

Another word:
Rust.

Two more words:
Sudden.
Catastrophic.

(did you see this http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

And one more i just learned:
Nihil

[SouthernBelle]

I adore my carbon bike. I've never babied it. In fact, it gets fairly abused.

[mimitabby]

Two more words:
Sudden.
Catastrophic.

(did you see this http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=19266

And one more i just learned:
Nihil

I was wondering about that rust part. I live in Seattle. I guess if i left my bike out in the rain all winter long it might rust, but who would do that? but even long rides in the rain do not rust my bike. I take care of it. Rust is preventable. Splintering is not.

[Jo-n-NY]

I have a Ruby Pro rode a century ride a few weeks ago. It was my first century with this bike. The ride was great. I love this bike. Even though I pretty much ride conservatively on my century rides, there are times that we might pick up the pace at times so I still like the fact that I am riding a light bike for those faster spurts.

~ JoAnn

[Crankin]

I've had 2 carbon bikes in the past 5 years. I don't baby my bike at all and ride mostly rolling and hilly terrain. I've had 2 medium type crashes (one with each bike) and nothing catastrophic happened that couldn't be fixed with a multi tool or new bar tape. Now, granted, I wasn't hit by a car, but my Kuota is so light I wouldn't trade it for anything. I have nothing against steel bikes. In fact, I'll probably get a steel touring type bike in the future. But it sounds like you are looking for something different than what you have, so go for it!