All Carbon is NOT created equal

We know this...

is not the same as this...

So why do we think these two

are the same?

I was working with a client on a bike fit the other day, and we got to chatting about frame materials and how they have evolved over the years. The discussion naturally made it’s way around to carbon, and the wide range of quality and price point levels within the carbon market. At this point, my client made a very clever and astute observation. He said that back in the day when steel was the thing, nobody would ever walk into a bike shop and question why a Bianchi or Colnago steel frame cost $1000 more than the steel bike they just saw at Canadian Tire. It was well understood that there were varying degrees of quality, strength and weight when it came to the steel used in bike frames. As things progressed into aluminum, the same distinction between “good” metal and “bad” metal continued. I think this was in large part due to a very good job within the industry of standardizing and monitoring the strength, weight and alloy characteristics of the metals used. It is also interesting to note that in large part, with higher end product you knew exactly where that frame material came from. It was Columbus, Reynolds, Easton, Deda etc…and when one of those names was stamped on the tubes set, you knew you were getting a quality frame, and with a little research you could easily determine the ride characteristics of that particular frame.

So, this begs the question…why isn’t it like this with carbon? Why don’t we know where the carbon comes from? Why is there no industry standard for quality, strength and weight? And most importantly, why are consumers not easily able to understand the differences between a complete bike that costs $2000 and a frame only that costs of $4000?

That last one is a question I get quite frequently as a Guru dealer, who’s frame do tend to rest in the mid to upper end of the price range. And really, considering they are all hand made with a custom lay up for each customer, that price is actually a bargain. But, people still want to know what they are riding on, and I can’t blame them. To Guru’s credit, they have done a good job of being open about what they use and how they use it.
All of the carbon that Guru uses comes from a company called Newport Carbon, http://www.newportad.com/ They are based in the US, and all manufacturing happens in house. They are one of the top suppliers to the US military and aerospace industries. Top notch quality all the way.
With carbon though, it’s not just where it comes from, but how it’s taken from blank sheet and turned into the finished product. Again, Guru has done an excellent job of explaining how and why they do what they do. http://www.gurubikes.com/enCA/tech-focus/matrix-one and a great video done for TV’s How it’s Made… http://www.gurubikes.com/enCA/main.php
Two things that I feel really need to be keyed in on are the carbon to resin ratio, and the bladder molding process. In really basic terms, carbon fiber is just that, a sheet of fibers woven or pressed together. In order to become something, whether it be a hockey stick or a bike, something is needed to bond those fibers into a particular shape. That “something’ is the resin. Resin adds weight to the finished product, and also reduces the stiffness and vibration dampening properties of the carbon. The more resin, the less optimal the carbon will behave. Guru utilizes an industry high 70% fiber/30% resin ratio in all of its frames to maximize the weight, stiffness and ride quality of each bicycle they produce.
The internally pressurized bladder molding process eliminates seams in the frame which results in reduced weight, increased strength and optimized use of the unidirectional fibers. And both of these things cost money. Resin is cheap, raw carbon is not. By using more carbon and less resin, each frame has a higher cost to it automatically. Bladder molding to create seamless components is also a more time consuming and therefore costly process, not to mention the cost of the bladders and molds themselves.

Personally, I think it is fairly safe to say that any manufacturer who isn’t being this open about what they use and how they use it, probably isn’t doing any of the above. And that is where the difference in price and ultimately in ride quality lays. That is why one complete bike can retail for $2000 and another frame only will retail for $4000 or more.

Eventually, I’d like to see a more standardized carbon industry, where it’s as easy to distinguish levels of carbon the way we’ve been able to distinguish levels of steel and aluminum for so many years.

Until that time, as a consumer you are just going to have to do your due diligence and a little research on your own to figure out what it is you are buying. Ask questions. I think that is probably the best and quickest way to bring about the change we need in the industry. If enough people ask the hard questions, eventually the answers will have to come out.