Old 05-04-12, 10:44 AM
  #10  
SlimRider
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern California
Posts: 5,804

Bikes: Raleigh Grand Prix, Giant Innova, Nishiki Sebring, Trek 7.5FX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rebel1916
You just said you are not interested in debating material characteristics, Slim comes in with a few hundred words of nonsense on just that without answering your question and you swoon...That said, I would be surprised if all the parts on a 20 year old frame would just swap over, so you may be better off sticking with old school. I can almost guarantee the fork wouldn't fit, and the new frame will not have tabs for downtube shifters. The new frames WILL upgrade much easier though.
Granted that twenty-year old components most likely won't be compatible. I can agree with that. However, everything that I've stated can be corroborated by scientific facts. Aluminum IS more subject to fatigue stress failure than steel. Aluminum IS more vulnerable to breakage, due to failed stress points and its low yield capacity.

These facts don't render aluminum as useless in terms of bicycle frame material. However, these facts do indicate that aluminum is inferior to chromoly steel in cycling applications where greater durability, longevity of service, and absence of stress issues, are appreciated.

Last edited by SlimRider; 05-04-12 at 10:49 AM.
SlimRider is offline