Hacker News Reader

Comment by ogre_codes | Hacker News Reader

This article is a bit off mark I think. The high end of the bike market is dominated by carbon fiber. The market for high end aluminum/ scandium is disappearing as the price of carbon fiber has come down over the years. It's very hard to find a high end bike which isn't carbon, heck even the mid-range is carbon mostly now.

There are a few brands which stick to aluminum, ti, and steel, mostly boutique brands.

One of my favorite bikes is a scandium single-speed, I still have the frame out in storage. It's a Kona Kula. Been thinking about rebuilding it lately.

View on HN

Yes, carbon has taken over the highend market. And not only because it is cheaper, but it also can be more comfortable, while a scandium bike might be more harsh. You could argue that aluminium/scandium is not the right material for a road bike.

For road racing there is no point in scandium anymore, carbon frames are made lighter, stiffer and more comfortable. The Scott Scandium from 2000 was below 1kg, the Scott CR1 from 2006 was even lighter in carbon, and more comfortable.

For tourists using road bikes, most people who pay for a highend bicycle will also have that be seen, with carbon, just like the professionals. There is no demand anymore for highend aluminium/scandium frames.

Then the really light scandium frames were well know for cracking, like the Scott Scandium. They were made to be raced and used for a few seasons. I doubt many have survived. I would love to have a bicycle like that, I think the Scott Scandium is beautiful, but I also know I will probably not like it much for riding.

Aluminium or Titanium frames make the best travel bikes.

- Unlike steel, they don't rust.

- Unlike carbon, they can cope with rough treatment (for example when loaded into the hold on a plane). They are less likely to be damaged, and the damage is more likely to lead to a gradual failure.

Titanium is reputed to be better but modern Aluminium frames are pretty light, pretty comfortable, and vastly cheaper.

I have an aluminium bike that I use whenever my trip involves a train ride or a flight.

Frame rust isn't a big deal on bicycle. Even in the 80's high-alloy steel like 4130 "Chromo" has been popular with bicycles. I've abused my 70's mtb bicycle with thousands of km of rustbelt winter riding and my frame shows no worrying corrosion, just surface discoloration where the paint has been scratched.

Carbon fiber is more durable than people give it credit for too, though because it's a brittle material that fails suddenly, larger safety factors should be used.

I currently ride a titanium hardtail MTB. It's an amazing ride. I vastly prefer it over aluminium. Titanium has a reputation for being expensive, but that's only true because the famous brands have such high margin on them (no doubt to preserve that premium reputation).

> For road racing there is no point in scandium anymore, carbon frames are made lighter, stiffer and more comfortable.

Comfort is actually a flexible seat post, which can be most easily made out of carbon. The frame material has basically no impact on comfort. (And that comes from someone riding only steel frames)

> This article is a bit off mark I think. The high end of the bike market is dominated by carbon fiber. The market for high end aluminum/ scandium is disappearing as the price of carbon fiber has come down over the years. It's very hard to find a high end bike which isn't carbon, heck even the mid-range is carbon mostly now.

Now, sure, the idea of "high end aluminum" doesn't make much sense in comparison to carbon. However, I think I still mostly buy this article.

Throughout the '00s carbon composites really remained prohibitively expensive, and even many mid-high range bikes would still be some kind of alloy with a carbon fork and at best carbon stays. It's only in the last decade or so that carbon has become cost competitive enough to reach well into the midrange frame market.

I think marketing was a huge part of this too. Once carbon was associated with "good" any aluminum alloy was immediately less desirable. There's just not much room in the middle there especially as CF was much more visually distinctive, and would be more likely to be recognized by another cyclist (i.e. as a status symbol).

There'll always be a spot in my heart for Kona bikes. They always had those really nice looking paint jobs, and quite a few of their bikes seemed goofy or weird at first, but then made a lot of sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com