Carbon frame vs. higher end components

I was reading the other site's review of the Orbea Rallon, which commended the bike for sticking with an alloy frame to be able to include top-shelf components at that pricepoint. The review suggested that the minimal weight savings of a carbon frame were worth forgoing in favour of the better parts.

So if buiding an AM bike and given a budget and both an alloy and carbon version of the same frame, is it better to go alloy and better parts or carbon and lower end parts?

I was reading the other site's review of the Orbea Rallon, which commended the bike for sticking with an alloy frame to be able to include top-shelf components at that pricepoint. The review suggested that the minimal weight savings of a carbon frame were worth forgoing in favour of the better parts.

So if buiding an AM bike and given a budget and both an alloy and carbon version of the same frame, is it better to go alloy and better parts or carbon and lower end parts?

Probably alloy with better parts… better suspension, brakes, wheels will make a more noticeable difference than the a slightly lighter frame.

Carbon frame is about the stiffness, not the weight.

I go aluminum with higher end parts. $1000 premium for carbon frame is not worth it for me.

I switched from carbon 26" to alloy 29" and can't tell the difference, especially now that both bikes are running the same quality of wheel. I still have a significant lust for a carbon frame but when push comes to shove I would still prefer better parts.

Both, obviously.

Good carbon frames have a great ride quality [HTML_REMOVED] the lighter overall weight can make a huge difference.

Conversely, I doubt anyone could really tell the difference between XT [HTML_REMOVED] SLX brakes [HTML_REMOVED] drivetrain as far as performance goes.

I'd go with the carbon frame [HTML_REMOVED] spec it out 'selectively'… Save money where you can [HTML_REMOVED] splurge where it counts.

Interesting question, but I have a tough time with the black-and-white frame or components. I think some components are more important than the frame, while others are much less important.

As said, carbon's big benefit is stiffness and you DO feel it when holding a line through the chunder. That's all things being equal - a frame's stiffness has more to do with design than material, though both play major roles.

I would never choose carbon over things like top-end suspension, droppers, a good drivetrain, etc. But I'll happily skip the carbon bars and fancy headset to go carbon frame.

I would think it really depends what budget you're looking at. Once you have a decent part spec everything becomes a case of diminishing returns. A frame is likely to last you longer than a set of mavic wheels and is much harder to swap out down the road.

So go for decent parts first, if you have more money, then consider the frame before going gucci parts?

Probably alloy with better parts… better suspension, brakes, wheels will make a more noticeable difference than the a slightly lighter frame.

+1 - If you can get top notch suspension, wheels/tires and a carbon frame go for it. If you have to sacrifice them to get carbon I would stick with alloy.

I don't mind sacrificing in drivetrain and to a lesser degree brakes to fit a budget. Partially because lower end components work pretty well in these areas and partially because upgrading isn't nearly as painful in terms of $$.

The frame is the heart of the bike. Carbon is not solely about light weight. If the author of that article believes that, I don't think that author has credibility. Carbon is about ride quality. The rider has to decide where they want to compromise and test ride to see if there is a compromise. It's not like good aluminum bikes are bad because they are not. My experience with going from a Santacruz blur lt 2 to a carbon version is that the carbon rides better because the frame is stiffer and therefore more accurate. Same thing going from a nomad to a nomad carbon. In road bikes a good carbon frame is far better that the aluminum ones.

There are also very cheap carbon frames out there like on-one.

There are also very cheap carbon frames out there like on-one.

+1 - that's true, but since you can't examine the layup it's worth considering that just because two frames are both made from carbon doesn't mean they are comparable.

You can buy a Walmart steel MTB, a Surly steel MTB and a Dekerf steel MTB….all steel all quite different from one another.

+1 - that's true, but since you can't examine the layup it's worth considering that just because two frames are both made from carbon doesn't mean they are comparable.

You can buy a Walmart steel MTB, a Surly steel MTB and a Dekerf steel MTB….all steel all quite different from one another.

Repeated for veracity.

I'd love to know more about how to check this.
As an example the Stumpjumper FSR frame is available in "standard" 9m FACT carbon for $3k (with a CTD Kashima shock).
The S-Works version is the fancier 11m FACT carbon and it costs $4.5k (with a Fox/Brain Kashima shock).

Does anyone know what the difference is or how you might test for it?
I guess ultimately a frame is made of whatever the sticker says it is.
True Temper or Prestige - can anyone really tell the difference?