Used Carbon vs. New Aluminum

PB Forum :: All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country
Used Carbon vs. New Aluminum
  • Previous Page
Author Message
flag SeaLegs26
O+
Posted: Jun 19, 2017 at 10:44 Quote
So here's my dilemma.

I'm in the market for a new bike (140-150ish travel front and rear) and after months of forum reviews and some test rides I've decided on the Bronson. My price point is right around $3k, which limits me to either buying the new 2017 aluminum version from my LBS or buying a used carbon version (with potentially better components) online.

Obviously there are major benefits to buying through the LBS (SC warranty, year of service, ability to finance, etc), but I'd want to start upgrading parts by next season (fork, shock, drivetrain, etc.) And buying used has its inherent risks.

In general, what are people's thoughts on used carbon vs. new aluminum frames? I'm sure it depends on the brand and I know SC carbon holds value. I'm coming from an aluminum spec stumpjumper, so I'm not sold on plastic frames (yet). Is there that much of a difference in feel between the two?


For what it's worth, I was set on buying a YT Jeffsy 27 AL One (also $3k), but my size is now out of stock until 8/30/17 which means I'd be without a bike for a majority of the season Frown
flag DonLopez
Posted: Jun 19, 2017 at 12:06 Quote
I would go with aluminum with better components over carbon with not as good but similar price. I have never ridden a Bronson, but I have a 1999 Rocky Mountain Element Race in aluminum and a 2014 Altitude 770 Rally in Carbon. Both bikes are awesome, but the Altitude is a beast because of components. Both frames are light, and neither have had any problems (hence why I bought another Rocky after abusing the Element for many years with no issues). The Altitude is Fox 160 front/150 rear with XTR brakes and drive train in 1X10 (36/11-40) and the Element is original Marzocchi 80 front/100 rear with XT 3X9 (44/32/22,11-32) and cable brakes. Bikes climb about the same (really good), Element faster on road/gravel, Altitude blows it away going down the bumps. I bet if my Element had the same components as my Altitude it would be hard to tell the difference in ride, and the aluminum frame may outlast the 15 year newer carbon one...Don
flag SeaLegs26
O+
Posted: Jun 20, 2017 at 9:18 Quote
DonLopez wrote:
I would go with aluminum with better components over carbon with not as good but similar price. I have never ridden a Bronson, but I have a 1999 Rocky Mountain Element Race in aluminum and a 2014 Altitude 770 Rally in Carbon. Both bikes are awesome, but the Altitude is a beast because of components. Both frames are light, and neither have had any problems (hence why I bought another Rocky after abusing the Element for many years with no issues). The Altitude is Fox 160 front/150 rear with XTR brakes and drive train in 1X10 (36/11-40) and the Element is original Marzocchi 80 front/100 rear with XT 3X9 (44/32/22,11-32) and cable brakes. Bikes climb about the same (really good), Element faster on road/gravel, Altitude blows it away going down the bumps. I bet if my Element had the same components as my Altitude it would be hard to tell the difference in ride, and the aluminum frame may outlast the 15 year newer carbon one...Don

So you're saying you wouldn't necessarily notice a difference between carbon and alloy if the component specs were the same?
flag thesmokingman
Posted: Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 Quote
Carbon is generally superior to Alu, but in your case its a used vs new, no warranty vs warranty so the question is more of a personal one imo. All else being equal the carbon frame will be orders of magnitude stiffer and more durable with the exception of pointy impact damage. The carbon will also last almost forever not being susceptible to corrosion.

But unless I'm mistaken the difference between the Bronson frame/bike packages from SC is 500 bucks between the alu and carbon. Surely you can come up with the difference? I'd rather take the carbon frame vs alu especially considering they run the same component package so the difference in price is solely down to the frame. And given SC's superb lifetime warranty, it rewards you to go carbon and buying new to get that awesome warranty.
flag Joemmo
Posted: Jun 20, 2017 at 11:23 Quote
Carbon will be orders of magnitude stiffer than aluminium? 10x stiffer or 100x? Slight exaggeration perhaps... Smile

My 2p - unless you are really confident about the history of a used frame - especially a MTB frame that could have been crashed or abused then I'd personally go for the new and warrantied option within your budget.
flag thesmokingman
Posted: Jun 20, 2017 at 11:39 Quote
Joemmo wrote:
Carbon will be orders of magnitude stiffer than aluminium? 10x stiffer or 100x? Slight exaggeration perhaps... Smile

My 2p - unless you are really confident about the history of a used frame - especially a MTB frame that could have been crashed or abused then I'd personally go for the new and warrantied option within your budget.

Could be a slight exaggeration, I meant a few times stronger. Have you seen Santa Cruz's own video from pinkbike on the topic of carbon vs alu strengths?
flag Joemmo
Posted: Jun 21, 2017 at 1:05 Quote
cool video - I like the 'smash frame into a block' test.. ouch. To be devils advocate - in the first test the carbon frame fails at about 1.4x the pressure of the aluminium one but seems to resist the impact test much better, though the way they changed the weight and the drop height makes it harder to compare the results.

But anyway, just to be clear, I'm not advocating one material over another, I have composite and metal bikes and trust both. There's just a lot of myth and hype around different materials so its worth trying to be objective about it and aluminium and carbon can both be used to make great frames that are plenty strong enough for real world use.

Going to the original point though - the simple fact is that regardless of material you don't know what kind of stress a used frame has been under so you always take a risk with one. The benefit vs the risk is up to you to decide.
flag thesmokingman
Posted: Jun 21, 2017 at 15:15 Quote
Joemmo wrote:
cool video - I like the 'smash frame into a block' test.. ouch. To be devils advocate - in the first test the carbon frame fails at about 1.4x the pressure of the aluminium one but seems to resist the impact test much better, though the way they changed the weight and the drop height makes it harder to compare the results.

But anyway, just to be clear, I'm not advocating one material over another, I have composite and metal bikes and trust both. There's just a lot of myth and hype around different materials so its worth trying to be objective about it and aluminium and carbon can both be used to make great frames that are plenty strong enough for real world use.

Going to the original point though - the simple fact is that regardless of material you don't know what kind of stress a used frame has been under so you always take a risk with one. The benefit vs the risk is up to you to decide.

I don't know what myth you are referring to? It's clear in all forms of racing that carbon fiber has proven itself to be the superior material where its applicable (rules) which is almost everywhere from chassis to brake rotors.

flag Pigglet13
Posted: Jun 21, 2017 at 20:50 Quote
Aluminium has a fatigue life and is why most alloy frames only come with a 3-5 year warranty unlike carbon fibre which does not fatigue and so will often carry a lifetime warranty.

Carbon can be quite easily repaired with no loss of strngth. Bust alloy frames are scrap, contrary to popular belief they cannot be reliably welded.

Most frames only come with a warranty applicable to th original purchaser so you pays your money and takes your chance.
flag brianl
Posted: Jun 21, 2017 at 20:56 Quote
Pigglet13 wrote:
Aluminium has a fatigue life and is why most alloy frames only come with a 3-5 year warranty unlike carbon fibre which does not fatigue and so will often carry a lifetime warranty.

Carbon can be quite easily repaired with no loss of strngth. Bust alloy frames are scrap, contrary to popular belief they cannot be reliably welded.

Most frames only come with a warranty applicable to th original purchaser so you pays your money and takes your chance.
Some companies (Giant, Devinci, Trek, Specialized) have lifetime warranty even on alloy frames.
flag nwjekyll
Posted: Jun 21, 2017 at 22:27 Quote
Go new if it's an option. Buying used can go two ways. If you go used and the bike is good, great! But if the pivots start to squeak, and/or one of the brakes sticks or loses pressure intermittently, or the shock blows on your 4th ride etc....its gonna suck
flag bambaatacas
Posted: Jun 22, 2017 at 21:28 Quote
Go with the sure bet. Buy new, I broke 5 frames in 3 years. All carbon, everything breaks why inherit some else's problems.
flag SleepingAwake
Posted: Jun 23, 2017 at 5:12 Quote
brianl wrote:
Pigglet13 wrote:
Aluminium has a fatigue life and is why most alloy frames only come with a 3-5 year warranty unlike carbon fibre which does not fatigue and so will often carry a lifetime warranty.

Carbon can be quite easily repaired with no loss of strngth. Bust alloy frames are scrap, contrary to popular belief they cannot be reliably welded.

Most frames only come with a warranty applicable to th original purchaser so you pays your money and takes your chance.
Some companies (Giant, Devinci, Trek, Specialized) have lifetime warranty even on alloy frames.
"Lifetime warranty" refers usually to the lifetime of a bike and not yours​, which means about 5 years or so. And warranty is to protect you from manufacturing defects and therefore probably doesn't cover fatigue anyway.

But to stay on topic - I had a carbon bike and now I'm happily back on aluminum. Just buy the bike you want otherwise you will always think about the one you don't have. Alu or carbon they both do the job very well for us average Joes...
flag SeaLegs26
O+
Posted: Jun 23, 2017 at 9:13 Quote
Great points all around. I don't doubt carbon is becoming superior to alu as a frame material. But I also have no issue continuing to ride aluminum (there's less than a 1 lb. weight savings between the C and Alloy Bronson).

Reading all of these posts, it's starting to sound like carbon takes a bigger hit to it's resale value than alloy too, which I guess can be something to consider when buying a new bike.
flag thesmokingman
Posted: Jun 23, 2017 at 22:10 Quote
SeaLegs26 wrote:
Great points all around. I don't doubt carbon is becoming superior to alu as a frame material. But I also have no issue continuing to ride aluminum (there's less than a 1 lb. weight savings between the C and Alloy Bronson).

Reading all of these posts, it's starting to sound like carbon takes a bigger hit to it's resale value than alloy too, which I guess can be something to consider when buying a new bike.

I don't think carbon has a lower resale value, in fact that's a crazy notion. Carbon does not corrode so it will last indefinitely all else equal. There's 600 buck difference between the two packages new Rx1 vs Carbon C, scratches head... I'm still not sure why you are even entertaining a used bike? If I'm buying a SC bike, and if it is carbon, it will be new just to get the warranty.
  • Previous Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.012399
Mobile Version of Website