Skip to main content


There’s No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike

The pro racers who do need carbon fiber bikes get them for free. Only the people who don’t need them actually pay for them.

Carbon fiber is light. It’s strong. It can be used to build everything from frames to seat posts to handlebars to cranks. And it’s one of the worst things that’s happened to bikes.

Now, to be clear, carbon fiber makes perfect sense for professional racing. Because it’s basically a fabric, builders can mold it into all sorts of aerodynamic shapes. Moreover, they can tune ride quality and maintain strength while simultaneously keeping the weight to a minimum in a way that’s not really possible with metal tubing. It used to be that racers had to choose between a light bike and an aero bike; now they can have both, all thanks to the miraculous properties of carbon fiber. At this point, there’s no reason for elite competitors to use anything else.
Gift Yourself More Adventure

But here’s the thing: you’re not them. I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you’re almost certainly incapable of milking the handful of seconds a wind tunnel-sculpted pro-level carbon fiber race machine might theoretically net you in certain situations. Moreover, the pro racers who do need carbon fiber bikes get them for free; only the people who don’t need them actually pay for them. This means that, ipso facto, if you’ve purchased a carbon fiber bicycle, you’ve made a mistake.

“Okay, fine, I may not be Jonas Vingegaard,” you may be thinking. “Maybe I didn’t need a carbon bike. But how does that mean I’ve made a mistake?”

Simple: while you’re not able to extract carbon fiber’s small performance benefits, you are in an ideal position to experience its many drawbacks—and for normal people, carbon fiber bicycles have only drawbacks.

This is Bike Snob NYC writing for Outside Online, by the way.

#cycling #bicycle #mastobikes #biketooter

in reply to Neil E. Hodges

Simple: while you’re not able to extract carbon fiber’s small performance benefits, you are in an ideal position to experience its many drawbacks—and for normal people, carbon fiber bicycles have only drawbacks.

Probably the biggest drawback to carbon fiber bikes is that they’re like eggs. You know how eggs are almost impossible to break if you squeeze them from the pointy ends, but if you squeeze them any other way you’ll quickly wind up with a handful of yolk? Similarly, while carbon bikes are quite strong when used as designed, what they’re designed for is racing. They’re not designed for crashing, falling off a hitch rack, getting knocked over in the garage by your young children, or any of the other little mishaps that befall normal people’s bicycles as part of the messy business of day-to-day living.

Daveography :magpie: reshared this.

in reply to Neil E. Hodges

And no, I’m not one of those retrogrouches who’s afraid of carbon bikes and thinks they’re all about to explode at any moment. In fact, I rode a 35 year-old carbon bike through the Swiss Alps. (It was a finely aged hunk of cheese.) Yes, I know they make airplanes out of it. Yes, I know it can often be repaired. Yes, I know the majority of people who own carbon fiber bikes won’t have a problem with them. But airplanes have a whole federal agency looking after them, and who the hell wants to have to send their bicycle frame out for repair because of some dumb little crash in the first place?
in reply to Neil E. Hodges

race bikes are like eggshells but could CF cargo and utility bikes be lighter than metal and tough enough for hard use, or would they just be the same weight by the time you got all those redundant bias-ply layers in?
in reply to 😀🚲

@enobacon You could make significantly lighter bakfiets/rickshaws if the box were load-bearing CF, and in general, cargo bikes are made with low to mid range tubing. You could make significantly lighter tubing or composite structures. But race bikes have a very defined loading, and it's harder to do that for a cargo bike, whose load size and location might vary significantly.
in reply to smellsofbikes

Essentially, carbon-fiber is usually heavily optimized for certain directions of load, but not others, and the others are its Achilles Heel as a result, right?
in reply to Neil E. Hodges

I had a Kestrel 200EMS, the fancy ultra high tensile strength fabric version. It was a great bike, rigid, light, aerodynamic. I hit a pothole in a race and the rear wheel deflected just enough to pick up the derailleur, which ripped off the derailleur mount. It didn't have a separate/replaceable derailleur hangar, so a minor oops trashed the frame. Too bad. It was rock solid until then.
in reply to NilaJones

@NilaJones I was pretty sad about it but I used to go through a LOT of bikes.
in reply to Neil E. Hodges

So, why recommend steel and not mention aluminium at all?
Aluminium is much lighter (and more expensive) than steel but still ductile (i.e. it bends rather than crack) if you pick the right alloy, and more rust resistant
...and it's still used in airplanes a lot :)

To me, that's the embodyment of the 80/20 rule: You get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the price.
Mind you: my main bike is a 28 year old steel bike but if I had to get a new one it'd be aluminium.

in reply to Neil E. Hodges

I bought a Bianchi carbon bike five and a half years ago. I didn’t think it would matter much compared to my old racing bike, but I smashed all my Strava records with it.

I didn’t get it for free, but it was my best buy ever. I grew to be somewhat of a cycling fanatic. I rode about 70,000 kms on it now I think. Rode it through the Alpes about 7 times, including #tourforlife going from Italy to the Netherlands in 8 days. Also lost a couple of kgs of weight.

in reply to Neil E. Hodges

Also the frames break and usually quickly. We've seen a few.