Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: french man's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    139

    stumpy carbon worth it

    Do you thinks the stumpy carbon worth it or the pro is as good

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by french man
    Do you thinks the stumpy carbon worth it or the pro is as good
    As good, no. Carbon is lighter stiffer and smoother.
    Worth it, well... that my friend is a judgement call. As with all esoteric things you get diminishing returns as you approach the zenith. (and the carbon FSR is no doubt at the top of the trail-bike/all-mountain mountain.)
    Worth it to you? Only you can answer that (there is, obviously, not a night and day difference between the alu and the carbon frame) What is owning the finest example of something worth?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12
    It has more OOOH, what a cool bike bling factor. But if you plan on keeping it and riding it a lot for years and years, get the aluminum one. Way more likely to last.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freerider167's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    if you plan on beating on it as in possibly getting it dinged up, then no. if you have md money in your pocket, and are interested in racing XC and clean and keep you bike clean, then go for it. it's not a big difference besides the stiffness and weight.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    731

    The Carbon is an amazing machine.

    I agree with the previous comments on the Carbon. As an owner I can tell you that the bike is amazing. I ride a Cannondale Rush, Scalpel, and Prophet, in addition and they all have their peculiar and individual charecteristics-which make them each a blast to ride, but the Carbon does something that no other does--- a certain indescribable smoothness that my other bikes dont touch. Maybe its the components or just the total package, (more likely). I enjoy light mt. and long XC and keep the Carbon pretty immaculate- if you are going to be realy rough get the Stump Alum. Pro-- its a grade A plus- great bike.
    Last edited by Wick; 04-16-2006 at 04:15 PM.

  6. #6
    Weapon of Choice
    Reputation: Iceman69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    734

    ... and if we just ...

    Yeah the carbon S-works are amazing, I ride with a guy who has the 06 Carbon Swork epic and he loves it! Im sure I would too!!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freerider167's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    the thing with carbon is that a good rock may scratch it and if this hapends near pressure points it will really weaken the carbonfiber frame and break. it's like cutting fabric. you put a tear on your jeans and it can easily rip when stress is put upon it, but is really strong and nice when the jeans are not weakend. aluminum is a lot better with rocks, cause it bends more and is more forgiving with damages like that.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by freerider167
    the thing with carbon is that a good rock may scratch it and if this hapends near pressure points it will really weaken the carbonfiber frame and break. it's like cutting fabric. you put a tear on your jeans and it can easily rip when stress is put upon it, but is really strong and nice when the jeans are not weakend. aluminum is a lot better with rocks, cause it bends more and is more forgiving with damages like that.
    Scratches in aluminum ten to propagate as well. Carbon really isn't as fragile as you guys seem to think.
    Is the Alu a better deal? Of course. It is 85-90% of the feel for almost half the bucks. But trying to make it a better bike by saying you would have to baby the carbon is false, it is not fragile. it's just expensive.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    25
    I have the Carbon Stumpjumper, and the bike is a dream. There frame is so laterally stable while smoothing out vibrations in high freq areas.

    The carbon bike is also very very tough and is much more likley to last as Carbon does 'die out' the way an aluminum bike does. And the truth is that carbon has much more abilty to resist catastrophic failure than aluminum, and is able to flex much more.

    The other issue I see here is that you guys have refered to the pro as just as good but at half the cost. The aluminum version is the SWorks M5, and at 5k it is no where near half the cost of the $6.5k Carbon. The Pro lacks the Xmax SL's, XTR cranks, XTR disc brakes, and lighter more manipulated tubing.

    If the question is frame performance for the money between the Carbon and Pro, well thats a huge price disparity...but between the SWorks aluminum and SWorks Carbon: The Carbon is simply the nicest trail bike i've ever ridden.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    630
    My 2 cents, I alway read people putting down carbon,

    1) do you own anything carbon? 2)can you afford a s works carbon? the answer is most likely NO to both ! Quit hating on carbon ! If you can afford it go buy it ! Carbon by far is the most advanced material at this time to build frames with they are strong lite and expensive !
    I have carbon bars, set post and the rear of my bike is carbon. I weigh 200 # and ride hard no problems, I crashed nice and hard today and yes it scraped the carbon but so what carbon can take it !
    Both of the Specialized bikes ( Epic & FSR) are incredable machines GO for it !

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrg
    I have the Carbon Stumpjumper, and the bike is a dream. There frame is so laterally stable while smoothing out vibrations in high freq areas.

    The carbon bike is also very very tough and is much more likley to last as Carbon does 'die out' the way an aluminum bike does. And the truth is that carbon has much more abilty to resist catastrophic failure than aluminum, and is able to flex much more.

    The other issue I see here is that you guys have refered to the pro as just as good but at half the cost. The aluminum version is the SWorks M5, and at 5k it is no where near half the cost of the $6.5k Carbon. The Pro lacks the Xmax SL's, XTR cranks, XTR disc brakes, and lighter more manipulated tubing.

    If the question is frame performance for the money between the Carbon and Pro, well thats a huge price disparity...but between the SWorks aluminum and SWorks Carbon: The Carbon is simply the nicest trail bike i've ever ridden.
    Damm! DO I have to defend in both directions?
    I was referring to sworks frame only prices when I said nearly double (3800 vs 2200) because that is the difference you can put whatever components you want on either and that won't change the frame.
    Secondly (and more importantly) aluminum does not "die out" (nor does steel or ti)
    Aluminum can "work harden" (like any metal) which can lead to fatigue and in some cases, cracking but this is a minor inconvenience as small cracks normally show before failure and Specialized has a lifetime warranty against fatigue. Metal frames DO NOT "die out" soften, feel "whippy" or (noticeably) change their feel (at all) during their lifetime.

    Guys... as I said the carbon is a noticeably better frame (and is a durable frame, but likely no more so) It is just expensive. If you can't (or won't) pay nearly double (again FRAME ONLY) for an incremental improvement (and the difference is NOT night and day) no one will fault you. (you cheapass;;-)
    OTOH don't try to make the carbon stumpy an equal to the alu. frame. It is not equal, the carbon is a better frame in virtually every way. It is lighter, stiffer and "feels smoother" (tough to describe but if you get the chance to ride both on choppy terrain you will say the same thing)

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freerider167's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy
    Scratches in aluminum ten to propagate as well. Carbon really isn't as fragile as you guys seem to think.
    Is the Alu a better deal? Of course. It is 85-90% of the feel for almost half the bucks. But trying to make it a better bike by saying you would have to baby the carbon is false, it is not fragile. it's just expensive.
    eh bad experiances on cuts on carbon, but idk this was fenders and rods. a rock kicked up and cut into the fender which cuts some fibers which made it realy weak in that area. aluminum from experiance stands up better for a beating cause it's more forgiving, but then again this is from my experiance, and i don't own a carbon frame so it could be different.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dir-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,302

    what are the weights?

    My friend that works at a Specialized dealer said that the carbon isn't all that much lighter than the aluminum S-works. Assuming similar resistance to pedal induced flex, I don't see how carbon's other ride qualities are relevant on a FS bike.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by freerider167
    eh bad experiances on cuts on carbon, but idk this was fenders and rods. a rock kicked up and cut into the fender which cuts some fibers which made it realy weak in that area. aluminum from experiance stands up better for a beating cause it's more forgiving, but then again this is from my experiance, and i don't own a carbon frame so it could be different.
    The same impact with an aluminum fender of similar weight would likely have also resulted in damage. The moral of that story don't throw rocks at high speed at very light and very stiff objects. BTW I would question the design of any fender that was so light and so non-resilient as to sustain damage from rocks. Why wouldn't you use one of the plastic fenders, they don't need the stiffness, several plastics offer almost unbreakable flexibility and reasonably light weight. (not nearly stiff enough to build a bar or frame out of however)

    Most peoples "carbon experience" comes from ultra light carbon bars (bear in mind, you couldn't even make a (safe) aluminum bar that light) that are only 1 or 2 laminations deep with little or no protection. Yes a scratch through the first layer of fibers on such a bar can be very damaging. (if the bar were aluminum, it would be no different, a surface scratch would significantly weaken the bar) remember the Hyperlite????)

    As for a carbon frame it would likely be MORE impact resistant than an aluminum one (of similar weight).

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toytech64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    155

    Cabon??

    Do you know the s-work carbon has about a 1/2" longer well base and 10mm more of travel.

    I was looking at the cabon and alum s-works and decide on the alum. becuase of the longer wheel base.

    I have an enduru and want something that is quicker steering on the techinical singer track and climbs better.

    If i did not have the endure I would have opted for carbon.
    He who dies with the most toys, still dies

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by dir-T
    My friend that works at a Specialized dealer said that the carbon isn't all that much lighter than the aluminum S-works. Assuming similar resistance to pedal induced flex, I don't see how carbon's other ride qualities are relevant on a FS bike.
    Your friend is confused, the carbon FSR weighs about what the '05 FSR120 did (without the remote damper, 5.4lbs for a medium) I don't have the current weight ('06 aluminum s works FSR) but few things changed weight wise (other than the addition of the (remote) inertia damper) so I would guess it is a little over 1/4lb (less than a half pound) heavier, based on having held a fox inertia damper in my hand. (~5 3/4lbs??)

    The carbon FSR is lighter, stiffer and more "solid" feeling, why would you think that those qualities wouldn't be revenant to a mountain bike?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Boxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    459
    I also had the same delima, I just could not see paying $7K for my Stumpy carbon and was going to get the Pro, then looking at what I would upgrade (crossmax SL) right away it was close to what the S-Works aluminum sells for. I still was over my price range and over $1200 below the carbon. It was then I ordered the SWorks (aluminum) and I am waiting for it to arrive. (should be at my shop today :-)).
    In my case the carbon was priced out of my range.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dir-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy
    Your friend is confused, the carbon FSR weighs about what the '05 FSR120 did (without the remote damper, 5.4lbs for a medium) I don't have the current weight ('06 aluminum s works FSR) but few things changed weight wise (other than the addition of the (remote) inertia damper) so I would guess it is a little over 1/4lb (less than a half pound) heavier, based on having held a fox inertia damper in my hand. (~5 3/4lbs??)
    He could be confused but without knowing the current weight of the Al S-works we still don't have anything to compare it to. If your guess is right it sure seems like a lot to spend to shave 1/4 lb of non-rotational weight. But that's just me.

    [/QUOTE]
    The carbon FSR is lighter, stiffer and more "solid" feeling, why would you think that those qualities wouldn't be revenant to a mountain bike?[/QUOTE]

    Whether a 1/4 lb of non-rotational wieght is significant is debatable. "Solid", you'd have to explain specifically what you mean by that. As for stiffer, my earlier post had the caviet that I assumed pedal induced frame flex to be about the same for both bikes. That could be wrong and if the CF bike is noticeably less flexy then that is the only real benefit that I see to having that frame (again, just because it's so darn pricey).

    What I meant by not relevant is that since it's a FS, any arguments of vibration dampening are mute.

    I rode one last week because I was in the market for a new frame. It's a nice ride, no doubt about it. But I wasn't interested in components at all and was just evaluating frames. For me personally, the CF is not worth the extra money for the reasons I mentioned above.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Boxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    459

    weights?

    The Carbon SWorks bike weighs about 0.3lb lighter then the Alum. SWorks bike. I weighed them both on a XL bikes.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    744
    Oh please....

    You don't need to justify yourself. You couldn't (or wouldn't) buck up for the better frame. That is fine, just don't try to make out like the difference isn't there.

  21. #21
    MTB'er
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    546

    I think is relative

    Numbers vs. numbers, it seems that the carbon frame is not $7K worth. What surprises me is that lot of people refers to this as something "incredibly expensive", "$7K for a bike is just unbelievable", "you can buy a motorcycle for the same price", etc. as if the Stumpy carbon frame were the first thing on MTB that represents such a difference in price. Check these examples:

    1) Eggbeater pedals: $300 2ti vs. $450 4ti. Are 51g worth $150?

    2) Wheelsets: $850 Xmax SL vs. $375 FSA XC-300. Are 150g of rotational weight worth $475?

    3) Selle Italia Saddles: $350 SLR C64 vs. $120 SLR. Are 65g worth $230?

    4) Forks: $875 Pace RC41 XCAM vs. $450 RS Revelation. Are 200g worth $425?

    5) Cranksets: $1,000 THM Carbones Clavicula vs. $300 Shimano XTR. Are 225g worth $700?

    And so on... and as in all these examples, the answer to the question "is it worth it?" or "is it that much good?" is relative. Relative for what you want, relative for what you consider is "the best option", relative for all the positive/negative comments you have read/listened to, relative to the kind of mtb you do, and the most important thing: relative to the amount of money you are willing to pay.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    12
    Carbon fiber structures are strong. They are not tough. When they fail, they tend to fail catastrophically.

    They do not withstand impact loadings well. They can be seriously weakened by minor abrasion in high load areas.

    It is difficult to distinguish between inconsequential damage and very serious damage, even for experts, without highly technical analysis. Even apparently minor damage can cause sudden and total failure.

    In general, it is much less likely that an aluminum frame will sustain damage severe enough to cause catastrophic failure that is not easily noticed by casual observation.

    Carbon is an excellent material for road bikes and for machines that don't have to last for a very long time under extreme usage.

    If you intend on keeping your bike a long time go with aluminum, or if you want bling, titanium.

    This link provides a good primer on how to inspect carbon fiber structures to insure safety.

    http://www2.trekbikes.com/us/en/Insi...nformation.php

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: freerider167's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy
    The same impact with an aluminum fender of similar weight would likely have also resulted in damage. The moral of that story don't throw rocks at high speed at very light and very stiff objects. BTW I would question the design of any fender that was so light and so non-resilient as to sustain damage from rocks. Why wouldn't you use one of the plastic fenders, they don't need the stiffness, several plastics offer almost unbreakable flexibility and reasonably light weight. (not nearly stiff enough to build a bar or frame out of however)

    Most peoples "carbon experience" comes from ultra light carbon bars (bear in mind, you couldn't even make a (safe) aluminum bar that light) that are only 1 or 2 laminations deep with little or no protection. Yes a scratch through the first layer of fibers on such a bar can be very damaging. (if the bar were aluminum, it would be no different, a surface scratch would significantly weaken the bar) remember the Hyperlite????)

    As for a carbon frame it would likely be MORE impact resistant than an aluminum one (of similar weight).
    you have your point. also the carbon is fact 10 or something which is suppose to be really really good, and hard. just don't crash the bike...

  24. #24
    Forging Elite Awesomeness
    Reputation: Upandatem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by freerider167
    if you have md money in your pocket, and are interested in racing XC
    let me finish this sentence for you, "...and are interested in racing XC, get the S-works Epic, not the Stumpjumper as the stumpy is for trail riding."

    mmmuuuccchhhhh bbbeeettttteeeeerrrrrrr

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Grumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    744
    I am sure you are just repeating a weird amalgam of facts that you have heard or read. Aluminum would have the shortest lifetime expectancy of any bicycle frame material (as a matter of fact several companies put lifetime warrantees on their bikes, except the aluminum ones.)

    In terms of possible lifetime carbon or 3.2 Ti (not CP or those weird Soviet alloys) would be first, followed (closely) by ChroMo Steel and then aluminum. Also rapid catastrophic failure is mostly design dependent (rather than material dependent) but in a high stiffness low weight structure CFRP will typically green-tree fail (fail partially but not completely) whereas aluminum fatigue (when it fails) is normally catastrophic and complete,

    Carbon composites (correctly engineered) also have a very high in impact resistance (higher than Alu given the kind of wall thicknesses used in bicycle tubing) The only place where aluminum might have the upper hand is in abrasion resistance (this gets complicated because coatings (anodizing on alu and UHMW coating on composites) greatly enhance this property. Neither material in it's raw state has great abrasion resistance.

    If you want to try an experiment buy the stumpy sworks alu and the carbon frames and take a hammer and take a strong swing at the center of the down-tube on both (like a rock that was kicked up by the front wheel. While I don't know the specifics of the design ( I am an engineer(P.E. (structural)) with 25+ years of experience, but have nothing to do with the bicycle industry) I would be willing to bet a fairly large large sum of money that the carbon would sustain little or no damage, but that you would have considerable (permanent) damage on the aluminum frame. (just my hunch, and no I would not be willing to fund such a test, but you can bet that Specialized does;;-)

    If there are problem areas (high abrasion or point-loading, neither of which CFRP is particularly good at) , the chinstay on the drive side for instance, you can easily add reinforcement (UHMW plastics or even CroMo or Ti) easily. The only real downsides to carbon is the material cost and the manufacturing cost. (composites require exacting (and high) resin /fiber ratios and no voids while maintaining full "wet out" of the fibers. Very difficult and costly to achieve simultaneously, particularly in a complex hollow structure like a bike frame.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •