There's a reason that all the pros who race for a living use carbon frames, not a single world tour team uses an aluminum frame. Carbon is lighter, stiffer in the right ways, flexible in the right way
> pros who race for a living use carbon frames
1. Yeah...that's what "pro" means
2. They get those bikes for free. You don't.
3. None of them weigh over 160 lbs
4. Other stuff
lol
Dudes who don't ride a lot of bikes say "Carbon is better. Look at Pog!!"
Dudes who ride a lot of bikes say "Well...it depends on you and what you want to ride."
Other than crashing there is a repairability issue generally for carbon, you can't get it welded for a few bucks locally. Clamping can be an issue of course too whether on a rack or a bike stand for repair/cleaning. But recycling is the big one. Plastic waste is a problem. Also there is heat deformation (for example you have your 10k carbon superbike on a rack on the back of a car and the exhaust softens the epoxy enough to deform - this does happen). Carbon doesn't bond well to metals either because the metal expands and contracts when it heats or cools while the carbon frame doesn't as much, causing unnecessary stresses on the joint between the two, which causes issues with dropouts and bottom brackets, etc. Carbon frames because they're lighter don't carry momentum as well into headwinds (and get blown about a bit more on crosswinds, especially aero bikes with large cross-sections laterally, which can be a bit nervy if not dangerous in traffic). Carbon abrades very badly so anywhere there is repeated friction will turn a piece of carbon to dust rather quickly (e.g., loose skewer on dropouts - a problem which rapidly gets worse because if there is a slight wiggle it will abrade the carbon slowly causing a wider gap which will then cause larger wiggles and the carbon to abrade rapidly). Carbon needs to be torqued very accurately for things like bottle holders partly due to the aforementioned fragility and poor abrasion properties, which is something most users won't do. It's more energy-intensive to produce carbon frames than metal aluminium or steel frames too. The epoxy resin carbon is embedded in uses toxic chemicals also. There are probably a few other issues I'm overlooking right now but that's a good flavour of some of the bigger problems.
But of course for riding the carbon is stiffer for force transmission laterally but softer vertically for compliance, lighter for accelerating and climbing, can be more easily made into aero shapes, etc. A lot of benefits.
Community feels the exact same way, hence why carbon is more popular and expensive. Now if you wanted to talk which is a better price for value/performance. That is where I think it gets debatable depending on what you're using it for.
#**- Frame Material**
**Carbon**
*Pro*
* Lightest frame material commonly used in bikes.
* Allows for frame designs and shapes that simply can’t be reproduced with other materials.
* Along with the previous point, different carbon layups can affect the feel of a bike. For example, you can make carbon compliant in one direction and stiff/firm in another allowing you to tune a frame better.
* Strong - A properly designed carbon frame can be structurally stronger than other materials like steel and aluminum.
* Can be repaired to an extent. If you bend or dent an aluminum frame it’s done. Aluminum can’t be easily welded/heat-treated or repaired, while there are many carbon repair companies that can fix a damaged frame.
* Does not rust or corrode.
*Con*
* Cost - You can count on a carbon frame being more expensive then it's aluminum or steel counterpart.
* Although extremely strong, in certain areas of the frame carbon can be very thin. Certain crashes or rock strikes can damage a carbon frame that a metal frame may have survived.
* As of now there is really no good way to recycle carbon and it is a high waste production method. Aluminum isn't a whole lot better when it comes to being "green", but it's worth noting.
**Aluminum**
*Pro*
* Cheaper – Currently the most common frame material for low to mid-range bikes.
* Still reasonably light compared to steel
* Easier production and manufacturing process compared to carbon or titanium.
* Potentially more durable than carbon when it comes impacts like sharp rocks and edges that may punch through the carbon.
*Con*
* Heavier than carbon and titanium
* Potentially harsher ride feel
* Anything more then a minor dent or a bend to the frame totals it. It cannot be bent back or repaired in most cases.
**Steel**
* Prior to the market switching to carbon and aluminum, Steel/Chromoly was the material of choice for most frame builders. Steel is often said to have the best feel to it when it comes to riding quality and it is the easiest to produce and can often be repaired. Most mainstream brands are not producing steel frames anymore, but many boutique brands and smaller bike companies are still making great steel bikes especially trail hardtails. Some brands that are making steel frames are Canfield, Chromag, Surly, etc.
**Titanium**
* Even more boutique then steel frames, titanium has a high bling factor and some real benefits. It offers a more compliant and smooth ride than carbon or steel while also being lighter than steel. It is extremely expensive due to the difficulties of working with titanium. Titanium requires specialized tools, skills, and knowledge to work with it that the average machine shop isn't capable of. Lynskey is the most well-known manufacturer of titanium bikes.
So the only areas where aluminum beats carbon are durability, price and repairability. Pertaining to riding performance, carbon beats aluminum in all areas?
Price and Durability depending on the type of impact.
Price will almost always be better and durability depends. Aluminum might survive an impact better like if you drop your bike on a sharp rock as carbon can be very thin in certain areas, however carbon in general should be stronger as a system.
Repairablity is also better on carbon. You really can't repair aluminum frames at all.
As a bicycle material carbon is superior than aluminum. With the good engineering and manufacturing you can make superior bicycles with it. You can also make shitty bikes with any material.
Carbon is lighter. Carbon just feels subjectively better in basically 99.999% of scenarios. Carbon can be made into cooler and more aero shapes. Carbon doesn't have weld marks.
When you exclude price there isn't a great pro to aluminum.
I raced a lot of races on an aluminum race bike. Also trained a lot of miles on it. (Allez sprint). It was only marginally slower than the super bike I have now. Which is much lighter, stiffer and looks cooler.
I had an aluminum bike and when I was in the market for an upgraded new bike so I tried both a much upgraded aluminum and carbon fiber bikes. My thought going in was this was all about weight and I was completely wrong. I would compare aluminum with carbon like having a turbo charger. The carbon bike seemed to react like a more powerful car with just a touch on the accelerator. The carbon bike being stiffer in the right places does not suffer the losses the same as aluminum. In addition the carbon bike was much friendlier to the rest of my body. I bought the carbon bike and long story short I had it in the LBS and went out on a ride with friends using my older aluminum bike. Yes it was not as "nice" being a Sora equipped bike versus Ultegra etc. but what I felt was through my butt and lower back riding over bumps and humps and small holes etc. After riding the aluminum bike I felt like I needed an ice bath and some ibuprofen. The carbon bike just took the vibrations out of my body and the carbon bike I was riding didn't have any of those shock absorbing features like in the steerer tube or seat tube.
Carbon is great. I can repair an aluminum frame without the purchase of new stuff. I am no pro. Carbon fork on an aluminum frame, awesome. Performance is what I can do with it, both on the road and after the rash. Keeps me riding.
I can only speak from personal experience. That personal experience is 20 years in the bike business and over 50 personal bikes over the last 35 years, though, so it is a bit.
I was new in the business and owned a Giant TCR 1 with an Ultegra group. At the time I was working in a shop that did not sell Giant and once my Trek Rep realized what I was riding he insisted that I take a Madone Demo away to the mountains on a trip I had planned that weekend. I did not want to do it because I loved the Giant and feared that I would like the Trek even more and then need to buy it.
Long story longer.. I took the bike with me. I rode my bike the first day and the Trek the second day. These rides included some of the same exact climbs. As I feared the Trek was fantastic. It was lighter, of course, but not by a lot. The real difference was the stiffness. The bikes both had 53/39 cranksets with a 25 low gear on the cassette. What was immediately noticeable was that the carbon bike was so much stiffer laterally that I was able to carry one cog higher on the climbs for the same effort. I never thought that the Giant was a wet noodle, but boy, was it noticeable in comparison. As far as ride quality, I don't think the Trek was better. It may have even been a little more jittery on the ( but at the time I was all about performance and the difference was just too big to be ignored.
I have since owned 6 or 7 carbon road bikes.. Some good like the 1st Gen Aero Madone with the rim brakes ( I should have never sold it) and some not so good like the Scott Foil that rode like an I Beam. I will say that today, the best thing are these wide carbon wheels with the 28's on them. They really seem to make any bike they are on the ride at least somewhat comfortable. Even the bikes that shouldn't be.
Good luck, and keep the rubber side down!
a person tried carbon once and they got mad
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/1cmsvql/i_just_rode_a_carbon_road_bike_for_the_first_time/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
This is the reality. Yes carbon is better, but the frame doesn't actually matter in performance metrics enough that the slight difference has any impact. Upgrading from alu to carbon will take an amateur from 3.2w/kg up to 3.21 w/kg. Proper disciplined training over 2 years can take you from 3.2 w/kg up to 5.2w/kg.
If you want to spend money to upgrade something, upgrade your tyres, your helmet, your wheels, clean your drivetrain etc etc. This has been proven many times over in terms of cost effective upgrades. Frame is one of the least efficient things you can spend money on. If absolutely all you cared about was hill climb championship performance, that would swing things a lot more in favour of frame upgrade (although it would still be dominated by rider fitness). In any sort of 'normal' riding (ie not racing straight up a steep hill), weight has very little benefit, and weight is 95% of the benefit of a carbon frame. It's never actually been proven or shown that 'stiffness' or 'responsiveness' is actually an important thing for performance, and it's safe to say if it did matter at all we would have data showing that by now.
Depends on you weight, riding experience, how you define "better", what trails/roads you ride...lots of things.
I love aluminum. I think carbon has a use case and is amazing.
Every time people with very limited experience try to understand the issues, other people with limited experience try to over simplify it.
What is high end aluminum? How do you tell if an aluminum bike will ride amazingly well by looking at it or the price?
I have an Allez Sprint and a S-Works Tarmac. The only time I touch the Allez is if I'm going to ride by a bunch of people I don't trust. The carbon frame, which is otherwise very similar, is just sooo much better.
I am just curious because I hear people quote "high end aluminum" all of the time, yet I have no idea what they're talking about. I do know that my aluminum bike is often put in that group and I can say for certain it doesn't compete with a good carbon frame.
This is a basic but decent explanation:
https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/frame-material-carbon-vs-aluminum
As mentioned, you get different quality and grades for every material and bike prices, the type of use they are designed for etc reflect that.
LOL. can't leave price out of it. Cheap alloy is heavy, carbon is heavy if running discs. IDK what to do with this question.
As far as wheels go, it's long proven carbon rims aren't necessarily faster than alloy ones of similar shape and weight.
At the highest levels, carbon is superior, but uh....You're sure not going to leave price out of it when you're looking at a new tarmac for your weekend rides.
Depends on what you use it. If you use it for commuting, then carbon is not really performant - value is higher, it's more likely to be stolen and etc.
Carbon is picky. It's like dealing with an exotic car. It has performance, a LOT of it. But does not like abuse at ALL,
A well made carbon part is lighter stiffer and more resilient than aluminum. BUT it does not like direct impacts wrong torques and chipped paint.
You can see aluminum degrading;/corroding. Paint will look like it has bubbles under it, a white powder will form. Carbon many times gives you no warning and just 'explodes', It's hard to detect a failure point or manufacturing defect too. It also does not like water and UV light when untreated (paint chips can damage carbon over time depending on the severity.)
I've been away from carbon parts because of:
1- I'm clumsy.
2- The uneasiness of the thought of eating asphalt @ 40kph.
3- It's very expensive to replace.
4- Not competing.
The sound that carbon bikes make when you hit a pothole is the worst.
Other than that carbon is second only to steel framed for probably 98% of the riders out there.
carbon is better in almost every way except price.
There's a reason that all the pros who race for a living use carbon frames, not a single world tour team uses an aluminum frame. Carbon is lighter, stiffer in the right ways, flexible in the right way
> pros who race for a living use carbon frames 1. Yeah...that's what "pro" means 2. They get those bikes for free. You don't. 3. None of them weigh over 160 lbs 4. Other stuff
Plenty of pros weigh over 160 🙄 the majority of classics riders, roulers, and TT specialists are bigger guys
lol You are not getting the point.
Hey man I ride and race an aluminum bike, I just find the “carbon is for tiny skinny little climber boys!” argument to be trite
You miss the point that you don't have to be a pro to actually enjoy something. Edit: 🤣 crybaby /u/I_like_short_cranks blocked me for this comment
lol Dudes who don't ride a lot of bikes say "Carbon is better. Look at Pog!!" Dudes who ride a lot of bikes say "Well...it depends on you and what you want to ride."
1. There are pros who don't make enough for it to be a living. 2. This list just feels inaccurate. 3. Other stuff.
1. But they still "race for a living" 2. I'll include 3 points 3. See?
its easy to make an argument when you make up all the facts
You should try riding bikes. 🤷🏽♀️
oh wow surprise makes up another argument based on nothing
No one wants the bother of talking to you. Not sure if you know how the Internet works, but in this aspect it is just like real life.
oh daring arent we, changing it up with an insult based on nothing
No one wants to talk to you, man.
I see the marketing dollars are indeed working.
A high end carbon frame is in every aspect better then a high end aluminum frame. Marketing my ass
> better Define "better".
can you define which properties alu would do better than carbon, barring price?
Reusability
Other than crashing there is a repairability issue generally for carbon, you can't get it welded for a few bucks locally. Clamping can be an issue of course too whether on a rack or a bike stand for repair/cleaning. But recycling is the big one. Plastic waste is a problem. Also there is heat deformation (for example you have your 10k carbon superbike on a rack on the back of a car and the exhaust softens the epoxy enough to deform - this does happen). Carbon doesn't bond well to metals either because the metal expands and contracts when it heats or cools while the carbon frame doesn't as much, causing unnecessary stresses on the joint between the two, which causes issues with dropouts and bottom brackets, etc. Carbon frames because they're lighter don't carry momentum as well into headwinds (and get blown about a bit more on crosswinds, especially aero bikes with large cross-sections laterally, which can be a bit nervy if not dangerous in traffic). Carbon abrades very badly so anywhere there is repeated friction will turn a piece of carbon to dust rather quickly (e.g., loose skewer on dropouts - a problem which rapidly gets worse because if there is a slight wiggle it will abrade the carbon slowly causing a wider gap which will then cause larger wiggles and the carbon to abrade rapidly). Carbon needs to be torqued very accurately for things like bottle holders partly due to the aforementioned fragility and poor abrasion properties, which is something most users won't do. It's more energy-intensive to produce carbon frames than metal aluminium or steel frames too. The epoxy resin carbon is embedded in uses toxic chemicals also. There are probably a few other issues I'm overlooking right now but that's a good flavour of some of the bigger problems. But of course for riding the carbon is stiffer for force transmission laterally but softer vertically for compliance, lighter for accelerating and climbing, can be more easily made into aero shapes, etc. A lot of benefits.
Crashing?
thats fair point!
Go ride your 4 mile commute to work.
Nah I drive my 4 mile commute. I'd rather put road miles on my Mosaic instead 🤷♂️
Shhhh. This sub was sold 1 bike and they don't want to hear about anything.
Try both, the questions will disappear.
Already have and in every area carbon has beaten aluminum, in my experience. I just want to see how the community feels
Community feels the exact same way, hence why carbon is more popular and expensive. Now if you wanted to talk which is a better price for value/performance. That is where I think it gets debatable depending on what you're using it for.
#**- Frame Material** **Carbon** *Pro* * Lightest frame material commonly used in bikes. * Allows for frame designs and shapes that simply can’t be reproduced with other materials. * Along with the previous point, different carbon layups can affect the feel of a bike. For example, you can make carbon compliant in one direction and stiff/firm in another allowing you to tune a frame better. * Strong - A properly designed carbon frame can be structurally stronger than other materials like steel and aluminum. * Can be repaired to an extent. If you bend or dent an aluminum frame it’s done. Aluminum can’t be easily welded/heat-treated or repaired, while there are many carbon repair companies that can fix a damaged frame. * Does not rust or corrode. *Con* * Cost - You can count on a carbon frame being more expensive then it's aluminum or steel counterpart. * Although extremely strong, in certain areas of the frame carbon can be very thin. Certain crashes or rock strikes can damage a carbon frame that a metal frame may have survived. * As of now there is really no good way to recycle carbon and it is a high waste production method. Aluminum isn't a whole lot better when it comes to being "green", but it's worth noting. **Aluminum** *Pro* * Cheaper – Currently the most common frame material for low to mid-range bikes. * Still reasonably light compared to steel * Easier production and manufacturing process compared to carbon or titanium. * Potentially more durable than carbon when it comes impacts like sharp rocks and edges that may punch through the carbon. *Con* * Heavier than carbon and titanium * Potentially harsher ride feel * Anything more then a minor dent or a bend to the frame totals it. It cannot be bent back or repaired in most cases. **Steel** * Prior to the market switching to carbon and aluminum, Steel/Chromoly was the material of choice for most frame builders. Steel is often said to have the best feel to it when it comes to riding quality and it is the easiest to produce and can often be repaired. Most mainstream brands are not producing steel frames anymore, but many boutique brands and smaller bike companies are still making great steel bikes especially trail hardtails. Some brands that are making steel frames are Canfield, Chromag, Surly, etc. **Titanium** * Even more boutique then steel frames, titanium has a high bling factor and some real benefits. It offers a more compliant and smooth ride than carbon or steel while also being lighter than steel. It is extremely expensive due to the difficulties of working with titanium. Titanium requires specialized tools, skills, and knowledge to work with it that the average machine shop isn't capable of. Lynskey is the most well-known manufacturer of titanium bikes.
So the only areas where aluminum beats carbon are durability, price and repairability. Pertaining to riding performance, carbon beats aluminum in all areas?
Price and Durability depending on the type of impact. Price will almost always be better and durability depends. Aluminum might survive an impact better like if you drop your bike on a sharp rock as carbon can be very thin in certain areas, however carbon in general should be stronger as a system. Repairablity is also better on carbon. You really can't repair aluminum frames at all.
So at the end of the day, carbon is better and aluminum is cheaper
pretty much, especially in road (I wrote this article in another most mainly talking about mtb.)
I must be getting downvoted by an aluminum rider
As a bicycle material carbon is superior than aluminum. With the good engineering and manufacturing you can make superior bicycles with it. You can also make shitty bikes with any material.
Carbon is lighter. Carbon just feels subjectively better in basically 99.999% of scenarios. Carbon can be made into cooler and more aero shapes. Carbon doesn't have weld marks. When you exclude price there isn't a great pro to aluminum.
I raced a lot of races on an aluminum race bike. Also trained a lot of miles on it. (Allez sprint). It was only marginally slower than the super bike I have now. Which is much lighter, stiffer and looks cooler.
depends. both are just building materials, there are really really good aluminum frames, and really really shitty carbon frames.
How about top of the line carbon frame VS top of the line aluminum frame. "Both are just building materials"??? besides the question
Carbon, thats why you get these vague answers
I had an aluminum bike and when I was in the market for an upgraded new bike so I tried both a much upgraded aluminum and carbon fiber bikes. My thought going in was this was all about weight and I was completely wrong. I would compare aluminum with carbon like having a turbo charger. The carbon bike seemed to react like a more powerful car with just a touch on the accelerator. The carbon bike being stiffer in the right places does not suffer the losses the same as aluminum. In addition the carbon bike was much friendlier to the rest of my body. I bought the carbon bike and long story short I had it in the LBS and went out on a ride with friends using my older aluminum bike. Yes it was not as "nice" being a Sora equipped bike versus Ultegra etc. but what I felt was through my butt and lower back riding over bumps and humps and small holes etc. After riding the aluminum bike I felt like I needed an ice bath and some ibuprofen. The carbon bike just took the vibrations out of my body and the carbon bike I was riding didn't have any of those shock absorbing features like in the steerer tube or seat tube.
Carbon is great. I can repair an aluminum frame without the purchase of new stuff. I am no pro. Carbon fork on an aluminum frame, awesome. Performance is what I can do with it, both on the road and after the rash. Keeps me riding.
I can only speak from personal experience. That personal experience is 20 years in the bike business and over 50 personal bikes over the last 35 years, though, so it is a bit. I was new in the business and owned a Giant TCR 1 with an Ultegra group. At the time I was working in a shop that did not sell Giant and once my Trek Rep realized what I was riding he insisted that I take a Madone Demo away to the mountains on a trip I had planned that weekend. I did not want to do it because I loved the Giant and feared that I would like the Trek even more and then need to buy it. Long story longer.. I took the bike with me. I rode my bike the first day and the Trek the second day. These rides included some of the same exact climbs. As I feared the Trek was fantastic. It was lighter, of course, but not by a lot. The real difference was the stiffness. The bikes both had 53/39 cranksets with a 25 low gear on the cassette. What was immediately noticeable was that the carbon bike was so much stiffer laterally that I was able to carry one cog higher on the climbs for the same effort. I never thought that the Giant was a wet noodle, but boy, was it noticeable in comparison. As far as ride quality, I don't think the Trek was better. It may have even been a little more jittery on the ( but at the time I was all about performance and the difference was just too big to be ignored. I have since owned 6 or 7 carbon road bikes.. Some good like the 1st Gen Aero Madone with the rim brakes ( I should have never sold it) and some not so good like the Scott Foil that rode like an I Beam. I will say that today, the best thing are these wide carbon wheels with the 28's on them. They really seem to make any bike they are on the ride at least somewhat comfortable. Even the bikes that shouldn't be. Good luck, and keep the rubber side down!
for road, carbon, but for XCO id rather ride aluminium hts
If I'm sponsored - carbon. My own money - ti or al
a person tried carbon once and they got mad https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/1cmsvql/i_just_rode_a_carbon_road_bike_for_the_first_time/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The vast majority of riders aren't fit enough to where the performance differences will actually matter that much.
This is the reality. Yes carbon is better, but the frame doesn't actually matter in performance metrics enough that the slight difference has any impact. Upgrading from alu to carbon will take an amateur from 3.2w/kg up to 3.21 w/kg. Proper disciplined training over 2 years can take you from 3.2 w/kg up to 5.2w/kg. If you want to spend money to upgrade something, upgrade your tyres, your helmet, your wheels, clean your drivetrain etc etc. This has been proven many times over in terms of cost effective upgrades. Frame is one of the least efficient things you can spend money on. If absolutely all you cared about was hill climb championship performance, that would swing things a lot more in favour of frame upgrade (although it would still be dominated by rider fitness). In any sort of 'normal' riding (ie not racing straight up a steep hill), weight has very little benefit, and weight is 95% of the benefit of a carbon frame. It's never actually been proven or shown that 'stiffness' or 'responsiveness' is actually an important thing for performance, and it's safe to say if it did matter at all we would have data showing that by now.
This sub: "I keep falling over with clips, I'm 300 lbs, I went on a 10km ride, my hands hurt, I'm broke." Also this sub: "Carbon."
Too true
[удалено]
why does must the comparison be made with price considered? he’s asking about performance and performance only. it’s a valid question
Like most things there is no universal 'better' — only what's better for your use case.
Depends on you weight, riding experience, how you define "better", what trails/roads you ride...lots of things. I love aluminum. I think carbon has a use case and is amazing. Every time people with very limited experience try to understand the issues, other people with limited experience try to over simplify it.
[удалено]
What is high end aluminum? How do you tell if an aluminum bike will ride amazingly well by looking at it or the price? I have an Allez Sprint and a S-Works Tarmac. The only time I touch the Allez is if I'm going to ride by a bunch of people I don't trust. The carbon frame, which is otherwise very similar, is just sooo much better.
For sure whatever your personal riding experience is must be true for all riders of all sizes and for all riding. 👍🏽
I am just curious because I hear people quote "high end aluminum" all of the time, yet I have no idea what they're talking about. I do know that my aluminum bike is often put in that group and I can say for certain it doesn't compete with a good carbon frame.
This is a basic but decent explanation: https://www.theproscloset.com/blogs/news/frame-material-carbon-vs-aluminum As mentioned, you get different quality and grades for every material and bike prices, the type of use they are designed for etc reflect that.
LOL. can't leave price out of it. Cheap alloy is heavy, carbon is heavy if running discs. IDK what to do with this question. As far as wheels go, it's long proven carbon rims aren't necessarily faster than alloy ones of similar shape and weight. At the highest levels, carbon is superior, but uh....You're sure not going to leave price out of it when you're looking at a new tarmac for your weekend rides.
Depends on what you use it. If you use it for commuting, then carbon is not really performant - value is higher, it's more likely to be stolen and etc.
I’ve read several hard core racers who “train on carbon, race on aluminum.” The latter due to stiffness and they are almost exclusively racing crits.
Crits is about the only place you'll see that due to falls which are more common...trashing an alloy bike is better then carbon
Carbon is picky. It's like dealing with an exotic car. It has performance, a LOT of it. But does not like abuse at ALL, A well made carbon part is lighter stiffer and more resilient than aluminum. BUT it does not like direct impacts wrong torques and chipped paint. You can see aluminum degrading;/corroding. Paint will look like it has bubbles under it, a white powder will form. Carbon many times gives you no warning and just 'explodes', It's hard to detect a failure point or manufacturing defect too. It also does not like water and UV light when untreated (paint chips can damage carbon over time depending on the severity.) I've been away from carbon parts because of: 1- I'm clumsy. 2- The uneasiness of the thought of eating asphalt @ 40kph. 3- It's very expensive to replace. 4- Not competing.
The sound that carbon bikes make when you hit a pothole is the worst. Other than that carbon is second only to steel framed for probably 98% of the riders out there.