Road Cycling - Are aluminum bikes THAT uncomfortable?

I'm about to get a new roadbike, probably a Cannondale CAAD 5 frame, but one thing that I'm nervous about is I hear a lot of people talk about how riding an aluminum bike beats them up over time.

I'd like to go as light as I can (tubular tires etc.) but would I be better off getting a steel bike? I eventually plan to ride 20-30 miles at a time and build from there.

Yes they are on the bottom of the list for comfort. If you only ride short rides like 25 miles or less you may never care what you are riding. The harsh ride of aluminum will show it's face as you ride on longer rides. I have been there and done that on a Klein. Don't buy something just because it is beautiful.

Originally posted by Blackjack
but one thing that I'm nervous about is I hear a lot of people talk about how riding an aluminum bike beats them up over time.

Having never spent a lot of time on an Al frame, I can't say. I don't particularly like the feel of the ones I tried. I used to ride steel... now riding CF for both my RB and MTB. I do wonder about the "harshness" reputation of Al myself. Are all Al bikes like that? Surely someone out there has produced an Al frame that's a bit more compliant. There's quite a variety in Al materials I've seen. They don't all behave the same do they. Even if they are all harsh frames, couldn't you make up or that with the proper selection of wheels and fork?

Some people love them and even swear they ride as good as steel.Tell them it's B.S. and they go ballistic.If you are big and or heavy they may not be so bad.Some lightweights swear they are great tho,so who knows.Spend enough money and the aluminum ride can get better.Therory says it can never be a good as steel.Some aluminum is better than others.You got to try them and decide.Get CF.Light,decent ride.Do'n buy the B.S. about it being fragile.Some steel(expensive) can be pretty light too. Same for Ti. Now you have too many choices.Hee,Hee.

I love the feel of my Klien Quantum Race. It maybe more harsh then most steel, titanium and CF bikes, however I don’t have any problems putting 150+ miles on my bike a week. The tradeoffs for a light bike, and a stiff bottom bracket are enough for me.

That said, I have put on a Selle Italia ProLink TransAm Ti Saddle, it cuts out all but the worst road buzz. I have also double taped my bars, as i have large hands, i also noticed this help cut out any road buzz.

Will your LBS let you take the bike out for a 20+ mile ride? Go try the bike yourself.

They might, they have a saturday morning group ride that's 30 miles long, I could give that a shot.

As for CF or titanium they are probably out of my price range: absolute ceiling of $1200. That leaves aluminum or steel.

Listen carefully to any reply from a Klein owner. They will always say how the just love their bike and in the same breath they will tell you how they did something to cut out some road vibration. I will repeat again, do not buy something just for it's beauty.

BTW, i put the saddle on my Klein only after i had the same model on my mtn bike for over a year, my butt fit the saddle, and my hands didnt fit the bars. I only noticed the slight change in road buzz after the changes.

I ride Al and I love it. It's no problem staying on the bike for longer periods of time (6 or so hours) and I have no double bar tape or special saddle.

And yes I did try a steel bike (it was a high quality Columbus frame) and it felt “soft”, I did not like it.

So don’t listen to the oldies that have grown up on steel and are therefor a bit emotionally attached to the steel!

BUY AN ALUMINUM BIKE!

My current road bike is steel and my next road bike is going to be steel. Having said that, I have heard (and it makes sense to me) that on good bikes ($1000+), the geometry and construction have more to do with how stiff/harsh a bike's ride is than the material.

Aluminum is actually a more compliant metal--that's why the tubes are always bigger. But I think a lot of cheep aluminum road bikes (<$1000) have poor design and so ride badly. It's like comparing a $200 steel frame mountain bike that weights 40lbs to a good tapered $1000+ steel frame bike. It's not the same beast.

I'd wager that manufactures design aluminum bikes to be more rigid because that's what people expect. Also, the fork and wheels are going to have a lot to do with how harsh the ride is. Even the tire pressure for chistsakes makes a big difference. I think a lot of the "harsh" talk is only subjectively perceived differences due to preconceived expectations. It's very difficult to do an objective test. I think the only thing to do is test ride a couple of bikes and pick the cheapest one that feels good to you.

If you're looking in the $1200 price range take a look at the Jamis Quest and the LeMond Alp D'Huez (sp?). There're both steel, around 20lbs with carbon forks and 105 components. Those are the two I'm trying to decide between, and they seem like awesome bikes for the money.

For some reason, alot of people on this board are anti-aluminum. Maybe because it is so common or because steel has come back in vogue, I don't know.
What is a long ride anyway? 6 hours on the road is long and I've never felt uncomfortable on a C'dale. Specialized Festina M4--now that was a stiff frame! Yes, that thing became uncomfortable after 150km but even that was not unbearable or anything. Just wouldn't be my first choice for a 6 hour ride. You plan on 20-30 miles so I would say BUY ALUMINUM. Enjoy the benefits of a responsive, lightweight frame.

What I do know is that the CAAD 5 is an awesome frame. There are no comfort issues and it is an excellent frame with ride qualities lesser companies wish they had. If you get the C'dale, I can promise you will never regret it.
Personally, I don't like carbon frames. The DeRosa King rides nice but that frame requires a king's ransom to own. I like the LOOK carbon with the diamond shape tubes-forgot the name of it but it rides nice. That's about it. All the other carbon bikes I've ridden are lame. All I can say is that alot of people will spend too much to be on Lance's bike.

The answer is really very simple and very complicated. Aluminum can be very harsh, but does not have to be. It all depends on the design of the frame.

I ride a Cinelli Aliante made of Columbus Altec2 tubing. The BB is overbuilt for lateral stiffness and the seatstays have an S-bend to take up road shock. The S-bend steel (Columbus Genius tubing) takes up even more shock.

I can ride 200+km on this bike without feeling that it is beating me up. On the other hand, a friend of mine rides aluminum Coppi K2 in about the same size. It�fs an absolute boneshaker but also an expensive bike.

I like aluminum with a steel or carbon fork but if you are really worried about a harsh ride, choose your frame carefully based on test rides and reviews. Otherwise go with steel or carbon.

The answer is really very simple and very complicated. Aluminum can be very harsh, but does not have to be. It all depends on the design of the frame.

I ride a Cinelli Aliante made of Columbus Altec2 tubing. The BB is overbuilt for lateral stiffness and the seatstays have an S-bend to take up road shock. The S-bend steel fork (Columbus Genius tubing) takes up even more shock.

I can ride 200+km on this bike without feeling that it is beating me up. On the other hand, a friend of mine rides aluminum Coppi K2 in about the same size. It�fs an absolute boneshaker but also an expensive bike.

I like aluminum with a steel or carbon fork but if you are really worried about a harsh ride, choose your frame carefully based on test rides and reviews. Otherwise go with steel or carbon.

Originally posted by Joe Gardner
it cuts out all but the worst road buzz
Indeed!
;)

Before you buy that Dale' checkout the Eddy Merckx 'Team SC' Im pretty sure it has carbon chain stays instead of the carbon seat stays that a lot of manufactures are using. Also his bikes have what is called Relaxed Geometry which means a little more slack in the seat tube angle. Also, think about where these bikes are built(Belgium) and the type of roads they are ridden on(cobbles). His website is www.eddymerckx.com

Greetings,
If you are going on short 20-30 miles rides, as you can see from the replies, it really doesn't matter. If your objective is to ride with friends, then comfort is king! If you are going to race, the lighter bikes have the advantage. Races in the US are usually fairly short crit's compared to longer stage races in Europe. If you want to go on fast training rides with a local club, then the lighter bike (Al or CF) is the way to go. Some of the manufacturers have gone to a CF rear to help with the harshness. I have also heard that the CAAD 5, 6, 7 are very harsh due to the all Aluminum composition. There are many high quality and fairly light steel bikes, even DeRosa has them for just about $1,000. As seen in a couple of the above posts, wheels and saddles make a difference. When you purchase the bike, make all of your swapping and changes with the dealer at that time. Take off the stock wheels and get a good set of "new-style" Shimano DuraAce (or equivalent), or Mavic SSC SL. This will help lighten the bike up as well.

I rode 4000 km across Australia in just over a month on an aluminium frame. I averaged 160km a day. Had a couple of days over 200km.

I had absolutely no problem with comfort.

The same frame will be doing 4300km from Perth to Hobart next year.

Well,RacerX I don't know if you have a Cannondale caad5 or just yak about it,but I have one and the ride really bites compared to nice steel.But it also maybe like, depends on alot of variables.

Like Pucci said... There's aluminum and then there's aluminum.

Mid-to-bottom-range and older aluminum frames tend to be very stiff and harsh. A top-end aluminum bike of a few years ago [say, a 1997 Cannondale] or a low-end bike from today [A Giant OCR3] will certainly have the ability and inclination to beat the hell out of you on long rides. On the other hand, there are a whole lot of top-end aluminum bikes today that ride very smoothly. Advances in materials and tube shaping have resulted in some very steel-like alunimum bikes. Look for specific tubesets; Columbus Starship will deliver a much nicer ride [all things being equal] than Columbus Altec or Zonal, and Easton Ultralite Taperwall 7005 will deliver a much nicer ride than earlier Easton 7005 tubes. Geometry has a lot to do with it, too. My GF's GT is made of 6061 tubes [which have a reputation for being very stiff and uncompromising] but the frame actually rides quite smoothly, ptobably due to the laid-back [very Belgian] geometry.

I hate to agree with RacerX, but the proof of the frame is in the riding and, even if you're not particularly an aluminum kinda guy, you do owe it yourself to try one to see what the difference is. Like he said, last year's Specialized M4 frame was a dentist's dream [shook your fillings loose]. It was the kind of bike you really wanted in a 50 km crit, but not on a century.

Aluminum has its benefits and drawbacks, like all frame materials, but a really top-flight aluminum is as great as a top-flight steel or Ti frame. I'm a steel guy myself, but I wouldn't turn up my nose at a DeRosa Merak.

Everyone has their own opinions....Ford or Chevy, Coke or Pepsi, BK or McD's, GU or Carb-Boom, etc., etc. It's all about personal preference. Try them all and see what YOU like.

Personally, I've been riding Aluminum for 4 years (CAAD 5 for the last year or so). I have absolutely no problem with comfort, ride, durability, etc.--whether on a 10 mile ride or an 80 mile ride. That said, to someone else's point, it may have something to do with size (I'm 6'4", 220 lbs)

I bought a Cannondale R700 (CADD 5) about 6 weeks ago. I think you will love it. I don't notice it being anymore harsh than any other bike I have ridden. I think it is quite comfortable.

In 1997 I broke my TREK OCLV frame (the aluminum bottom bracket sleeve seperated from the frame) and TREK replaced it gladly, bravo to TREK, excellent company.

While I was waiting for my new TREK frame to arrive I purchaced a CAD 3 Cannondale. I needed a bike and the C'dale was the only bike in the shop that fit me. I was skeptical and had a preconceived negative opinion about Aluminum bikes.

The Cannondale proved me wrong. It's a great bike. I've ridden it on several centuries, raced it and trained on it. It's still my "racing" bike. When it was all said and done, I sold the TREK when I got it back ... And kept the C'dale.


Vertical compliance in road bikes (non-suspension) is measured in thousanths of an inch. I'm certain that my tires 20 & 23 have many times absorbtion of even the most flexible frame has.

Buy the frame that fits you. Don't worry about the Material. Good bikes can be made in all materials.

Originally posted by Blackjack
I'm about to get a new roadbike, probably a Cannondale CAAD 5 frame, but one thing that I'm nervous about is I hear a lot of people talk about how riding an aluminum bike beats them up over time.

I'd like to go as light as I can (tubular tires etc.) but would I be better off getting a steel bike? I eventually plan to ride 20-30 miles at a time and build from there.

Over the years, I have ridden quite a few Cannondales. In some ways my favorite was the Black Lightning. It was the stiffest bike that Bicycling Magazine ever measured. It was rumored that you could tell if a coin was heads or tails when you ran over it blindfolded (that was hyperbole). It did ride a bit rough but it was tremendously responsive. A few friends of mine rode it and they all thought it was a) harsh ride and b) worth it. I rode quite a few centuries on that bike too with no problem at all.

The CAAD5 is not as responsive as the old Black Lighting but it is pretty good. It also rides considerably better. According to Bicycling Magazine about 2 years ago, the differences in ride based on materials is getting far less pronounced. Engineers have learned how to compensate for materials. Still oversized aluminum tends to have a less compliant feel according to most folks but it has more stiffness than anything else. I am a heavy rider (190lbs when I am "light") and I like the stiffness.

I would suggest test riding a few of the competiting models and go with what you like.

I have an older Cannondale and a new Trek - both aluminum frames. The Cannondale has a steel fork and is very stiff. You definitely can feel the road, but I rode a lot of long rides and several centuries on it. My Trek 2200 has a carbon fiber fork and a much smoother ride. I am very happy with this bike. It's very light and has a good ride.

One issue to consider that hasn't been mentioned is the fatigue limit of Al vs. steel and Ti. Some take it into consideration, some don't. That is a whole new thread though....

To start I am of the "steel is real" camp, that said
I've ridden aluminium and came up with the following:
Early Al frames fell into 2 brackets, too loose (ala Viscount,
early Alan etc.) and way too stiff (i.e. Cannondale). I believe
alot of the buzz about Al comes from early examples, and the
geometry has evolved to the point where AL can be quite
comfortable. The one caveat I have to that has been mentioned
previously, YOUR WEIGHT.
Lightweight riders tend to feel that AL is too stiff and beats
them up, heavier riders don't seem to mind the stiffness.
At 130#s I couldn't stand the stiff AL frames.
At 150#s they are not so bad.

So, my thought, test em all, AL, Steel, and CF (Ti too if its
in your budget) then deceide which feels best to you.
Thats my $.02 worth.

Marty

I'm only 130lb so it may be different cuz im lighter but I tried a CAAD5 frame and compared it to my Columbus SL frame. I liked the feel of my stee l frame more then the CAAD5.

In 1997 I broke my TREK OCLV frame (the aluminum bottom bracket sleeve seperated from the frame)

This right here is the best reason I can think of to avoid CF bikes. Who cares how they ride if they have a habit of self-destructing over time? I do not mean to offend CF bike owners, but JEEZ I expect a $2000 frame to last a long, long time.

So that leaves Al and Steel as the legitimate frame materials for the layman's bike. Alum supposedly fatigues faster, but steel rusts. Al tubes dent when you look at them wrong, steel is downright heavy...

Well Got Damn!

I say sell your car and buy Titanium.

BK

Apparently I lack either the sophistication or the experience necessary to detect the subtle differences between materials discussed in this thread.

Both of my machines are aluminum. During testing, though I was aware of the material used on each bike, that was factual knowledge given to me by labels and folks at the LBS. It was not knowledge gained from the test ride based on the feel.

I had a maximunm price point and looked for a bike within it without specific regard for the actual materials used in the manufacture.

My selection was an aluminum comfort hybrid Giant Sedona DX for my first bike. A year later and 60 pounds lighter, I selecte the Giant OCR 1 compact road bike. I still love and use them both. Though I was informed by the LBS staff that the fork on the OCR1 was Cf and would tend to dampen vibration, I ultimately decided based on price and the feel of the machine during a test ride.

Carl

Originally posted by Guillermo
One issue to consider that hasn't been mentioned is the fatigue limit of Al vs. steel and Ti. Some take it into consideration, some don't. That is a whole new thread though....

Very true :)

The strength and durability of a Ti frame is quite appealing to me.

This past weekend I had a chance to try out a friends Trek 2000 on about a 50k ride and I didn't notice any vibration that would cause me to not want to ride this bike all day. As a matter of fact I didn't feel any vibration at all and I was very much looking for it because I ride steel all the time and I am in the market for a new bike and wanted to see what was up with AL. I sure liked the lighter weight in the hills. Wow!

The owner of my LBS told me that his rule of thumb for bike ownership was that a bike should last 10 years without major component failure. He explained that the difference between most components on a quality bicycle was in fact durability more than performance.

He allowed that the 10 year rule of thumb had to be looked at in terms of the type of riding as well as accumulated miles. His 10 year rule was predicated on about 2000 miles per year.

When I asked him about the 10 year rule in regard to frame material, he did suggest steel as the most durable since we are in a dry climate. In moist salt-air climes he explained that rust might be a problem impacting the durabilty of steel. He seemed to suggest that titanium and CF might in fact offer somewhat less durability under similar circumstances. He also allowed that aluminum was extremely durable if not somewhat stiffer to ride.

He was very specific regarding components. I.e. 105 vs Ultegra, etc., was purely a matter of durability, and not performance.

I'd be curious to hear your remarks.

Carl

I would agree. The difference between Ultegra and DA isn't very noticable concerning performance.
The difference between Centaur and Chorus isn't that noticable either.

One place it is noticable is in the crank, chainrings and quality of bottom bracket. There is a big difference in Ultegra/Centaur chainrings compared to Chorus/ DA rings.
Otherwise, I would say the higher quality materials are for durability and not immediate performance for the most part.

edit:
Obviously things like higher quality finish, feel, etc are not performance related specifically but add alot to the value of the upscale groups.

Originally posted by RacerX
Obviously things like higher quality finish, feel, etc are not performance related specifically but add alot to the value of the upscale groups.

Indeed. My LBS owner seemed to be most impressed with the Specialized Allez Comp hanging on his wall, as was I. He noted not only the component differences to me but the "smooth welds" and other finish touches which were upscale of the bike I eventually selected. The price difference was $700 too.

i currently ride a klein quantum race, and have for the last 5 years. its a great bike for out of the saddle kind of riding; climbs, sprints. that is one of the positives of aluminum, its very stiff. its also very light. however, you do give up some comfort with al. it may not be enough to bother you or it might. thats what you need to decide.

i am looking for a new bike right now, and i'm only looking at titanium or carbon fiber, steel would be on my list, but it would rust too fast where i live (guam). aluminum is just getting to punishing for me on longer rides.

my recommendation is test ride different frame materials before you buy. if your local bike shop will let you take one on a fairly substantial ride, so you can accurately compare the differences.

good luck

comfort is subjective. cheaper bikes can be crap (comparitively) when made of any material.

the best thing to say is: with the advent of inexpensive carbon fiber forks and other 'comfort' additions like corked tape, etc aluminum is viable. the best thing to say about aluminum is that what you see is what you get. aluminum through and through.

steel bikes in the lower $$ range aren't the same steel throughout. it is only when you get into the customs, the smaller bike makers, higher models do you get 853 throughout the entire frame.... or 525..... so the bias against the power transfer of steel in the entry levels are valid.

i like that steel can be repaired and PERSONALLY the oversized frames look ugly...

you can get decent power transfer from the BB from any QUALITY frameset.

last year i separated my shoulder (softball) and was riding my steel bike within a week over less than stellar roads with good comfort. I tried my friend's aluminum San Marino and was unable to ride comfortably (road tested) but his was a mid-entry level bike, not a CAAD 5.

if you are on your bike 200 days a year, over the lifetime of your bike ---> you want to be as comfortable as possible.,..

I moved from steel (old Peugot) to aluminum (Fuji Team) this year. My new aluminum frame rides harsher than my old steel frame. No question about it, but I don't consider the ride objectionable.

Keep in mind that AL only rides harsher when the road is rough. When the road is smooth, the difference between the frames is immaterial.

AL frames are, generally, lighter, stiffer (duh), and less expensive to produce than steel. Light and stiff means they sprint and climb better than steel. Less expensive means that you can get a better-spec'ed AL bike than steel at the same price point.

You'll give up some ride quality with an AL frame, especially in the low to mid-range. But if your roads are generally smooth, your AL bike will ride acceptably. If your roads go UP, a lighter, stiffer AL bike will climb better. Sure, we'd all like to ride Ti, CF, or whatever frame comes with a $6,000 bike, but the realities are we must live within our budget. At $1,200 AL probably gives the best value.

Add stiff, high profile wheels with 120 psi tires to a steel racing geometry frame and see what happens. It will produce a stiff ride. My point is many who have had an older steel racing frame probably had lower profile rims with 100 psi tires. The then test ride a AL frame with stiff, higher performance wheels and notice a BIG difference in Ride.

"Did you know that:

Aluminum frames have a harsh ride?

Titanium frames are soft and whippy?

Steel frames go soft with age, but they have a nicer ride quality?

England's Queen Elizabeth is a kingpin of the international drug trade?

All of the above statements are equally false.
There is an amazing amount of folkloric "conventional wisdom" about bicycle frames and materials that is widely disseminated, but has no basis in fact.

The reality is that you can make a good bike frame out of any of these metals, with any desired riding qualities, by selecting appropriate tubing diamters, wall thicknesses and frame geometry."

The preceding is an excerpt from an article by Sheldon Brown (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html). Click on the link to read more...

Originally posted by Moose
"Did you know that:

Aluminum frames have a harsh ride?

Titanium frames are soft and whippy?

Steel frames go soft with age, but they have a nicer ride quality?

England's Queen Elizabeth is a kingpin of the international drug trade?

All of the above statements are equally false.
There is an amazing amount of folkloric "conventional wisdom" about bicycle frames and materials that is widely disseminated, but has no basis in fact.

The reality is that you can make a good bike frame out of any of these metals, with any desired riding qualities, by selecting appropriate tubing diamters, wall thicknesses and frame geometry."

The preceding is an excerpt from an article by Sheldon Brown (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html). Click on the link to read more...

Please let's not allow science and engineering to ruin such a nice religious discussion.

I think the problem is that the generation of aluminum bikes in early-90s were stiff, uncomfortable rides. The early generations of Ti bikes were whippy and CF bikes did have a nasty habit of delaminating and coming unbonded. [Seen many CF Specialized Allezes and Epics around lately?]

All of these materials are relative newcomers to road bike design and all had initial teething problems. On one hand, the initial impression has lingered on a few years later and, on the other hand, thanks to trickle-down technology, the same early-gen frame material problems that earned these materials bad reputations are still being used at the lower-end.

Take Specialized. Sure, the top-end S-Works and Allez bikes are made of the latest Columbus E5 [whatever, whatever] tubing, but the low-end of the line is still being made with the A1 aluminum tubing that Specialized introduced in 1997 on its MTBs and which earned a reputation for harshness and stiffness.

Yes, you can get a Columbus Starship or Easton UltraLite frame, but the entry-level bikes are going to be made of Zonal or Basic 7005. There is a difference between the latest generation of Al and the last... but you have to pay for it.

Originally posted by KennethToronto


Very true :)

The strength and durability of a Ti frame is quite appealing to me.

I have put over 30,000 miles on a couple of aluminum road bikes and I did not have any trouble and my weight (when I am trim is 190 lbs (not kilos thank god) and I ride pretty fast.

I really do not think there is that much of a concern here.

Originally posted by webist
The owner of my LBS told me that his rule of thumb for bike ownership was that a bike should last 10 years without major component failure. He explained that the difference between most components on a quality bicycle was in fact durability more than performance.

He allowed that the 10 year rule of thumb had to be looked at in terms of the type of riding as well as accumulated miles. His 10 year rule was predicated on about 2000 miles per year.

When I asked him about the 10 year rule in regard to frame material, he did suggest steel as the most durable since we are in a dry climate. In moist salt-air climes he explained that rust might be a problem impacting the durabilty of steel. He seemed to suggest that titanium and CF might in fact offer somewhat less durability under similar circumstances. He also allowed that aluminum was extremely durable if not somewhat stiffer to ride.

He was very specific regarding components. I.e. 105 vs Ultegra, etc., was purely a matter of durability, and not performance.

I'd be curious to hear your remarks.

Carl

I have always ridden 105 and found that it holds up pretty well up to 30,000 miles. Right now, my rear derailler is having some problems though.

Of course, if one were Freddy Hoffman (55,000 miles per year), I don't think any bike would last 10 years.

No one is mentioning what kind of riding one will do. I have to do a lot of climbing(average 1000ft every 10 miles) and an Al made sense. It responds nicely down hill and the stiffness is nice on the uphill. But when I rode in Chicago on flat beat up city rodes I hated my bike. I felt every freaking bump in the road and would have gone for steel in the city. But in the mountains on smooth country rodes...the Al feels great.
Keep in mind that this is from an ignorant newbie who carries little about gear talk, but I'll give my thoughts on the matter.

Wow, this is actually a very informative religious thread. Some really important points are being brought up:

1. History of the materials
2. Budget
3. Wheel contributions
4. Terrain, climate
5. Durability...well, kinda

I think another important thing to consider is how the bike that fits your budget and pleases your soul is warrantied.

In the realm of mountain bikes, steel frames have the best warranties - lifetime warranties in many cases. AL frames average 1 year - and that includes specialty makers! Cannondale used to warranty for life (caad1 & 2), but have since cut that warranty way down. Titanium frames are by and large warrantied for life.

I think these warranties say a lot about nature of the materials we are discussing. If the bike manufacturers have no confidence that their AL or CF frames will last more than 1-5 years, then maybe there is something to the old wives tales about AL fatigue and CF fragility. The problem is finding decently spec'd steel (forget titanium) bikes in the modest price range...what happened to the cro-mo Centurions, Fujis, Bridgestones?

And this is not just a matter of budget. It's a matter of philosophy - why do manufacturers build heaps of disposable, lightweight bikes? Because consumers value them, lust after them. I am making a leap here, but isn't this phenomenon just another example of how wasteful and short-sighted Western society is becoming as a whole? I understand the quest to build the lightest, the fastest, the most specialized bikes - these bikes are the racer's tools. Racer's are exmpted from being responsible consumers because their bikes are exercises in engineering and free. Lay consumers, however, be they buying bikes, cars, knife sets, clothes, etc. should be more down to earth. Conservative even.

I wish Reynolds 853 was cheaper.

BK

Originally posted by Buddha Knuckle

I think these warranties say a lot about nature of the materials we are discussing. If the bike manufacturers have no confidence that their AL or CF frames will last more than 1-5 years, then maybe there is something to the old wives tales about AL fatigue and CF fragility.


I can't speak for other manufacturers but
my Aegis roadbike came with a lifetime warranty and lifetime crash replacement policy.

my Aegis roadbike came with a lifetime warranty and lifetime crash replacement policy.

Word

I rode and raced a Cannondale 3.0 from with 105 components for 17 years. I still have it and love it. I just bought an OCR 1, also with 105, but it has a CF fork. As a biker on a budget, I love both the Al frame and 105 group. I have ridden Centurys on both bikes with no problem. I have heard that steel is more comfortable, but have not experienced the discomort of buzzing that others are referring to with Al. If you want a good steel road bike for about $1200, Bicycling Magazine loved the Specialized Allez A1 sport.

I just sold my steel Fuji Roubaix Pro ( to my brother) and bought a used De Rosa Planet (aluminum with carbon seat stays). We road together one day so I was able to switch back and forth to compare rides. On rough surfaces the Fuji was much smoother, but the De Rosa is quicker and easier to climb with (lighter) , and I like the way it looks better. Most of my riding is on smooth roads with hills so I think the De Rosa will serve me well. I would like to try titanium and carbon fiber also some day.

I've been riding my AL Cannondale for 16 years. As many as 150 miles at a time and I really enjoy the stiffness of the frame. I'm 5'11" and 175 lbs. No special seat, tape, or anything.
I am upgrading to a trek 5200 in 2 weeks and hope I like it as well.