Road Cycling - Aluminum or Carbon?

I am in the market for a new road bike and have about $2,200 to spend. I know that I will ulitimately have to ride a few of both before I decide but I am wondering why it is that some go with aluminum over carbon given that it is supposed to be so much smoother. Is aluminum going to be phased out eventually due to the popularity of carbon? Are their people out there that opt for aluminum and if so, why? I am really struggling with this and appreciate any input from other cyclists. You are most welcome to make recommendations as to a bike in my price range as well. Thanks muchly!

What's wrong with steel?

Seriously, I'm amazed that some people don't even consider it. It's still the best all around frame material with the best combination of strength and comfort.

Just a sore spot with me.

Sorry.

I used to ride a Cannondale R500 aluminum frame bike, but upgraded a few years back to a Trek 5200 full carbon. I've been very happy with the carbon ride, and doubt I'll ever go back to aluminum.

I find the carbon frame more comfortable on long rides, because it seems to soak up a bit more of the road buzz. And, it seems stiffer in the bottom bracket when I stand and hammer.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

There is nothing wrong with steel. There are some great steel tubings out now and some great custom makers.

The value quotient comes into play here:
A good, custom steel frame is going to cost as much or more than a good aluminum or carbon frame.
Of course, it would be custom- but even a "stock" frame from a custom maker can overshadow aluminum or carbon frames in the $2K range.

Weight. Steel is heavy. No matter what you do to the frame, it's going to be at least 2-3 pounds heavier.
When people are concerned with grams and ounces, it automatically pushes steel out of the running.

Race credibility. I don't care about it but obviously alot of people do. TREK sells a ton of their carbon frames for outrageous prices-even though those molds are well over a decade old. Pure profit and every dime they spend on Lance is paying off, hey more power to them. It's a business and Trek is #1
CERVELO. Did anyone give their TT & road frames any attention before CSC & Tyler? Nope. They were not even on the radar. Cervelo was a complete TRI-bike company. Race Cred- it obviously means alot to people.

Titanium- It rides like steel, is stiff like aluminum and featherweight. It is also the most durable of any of the materials. Cost, again, is comparable to a custom steel frame.

Steel frames are coming back into vouge. I've noticed a carbon/aluminum backlash and people enjoying steel frames. They can still be relative bargains, and I cannot fault the performance of a good steel frame-especially from a builder that knows what he's doing.

Material is ONE part of what makes a frame good. "Carbon frames ride better" or "aluminum frames are harsh" are generic statements that ignore all the work good makers put into quality frames.

I have ridden crappy steel bikes. I have ridden beautifuly designed steel bikes. Crappy carbon and great carbon. Lots of crappy aluminum and great aluminum.

Cannondale, for example, has a great aluminum bike. The reason is they have refined their bikes in the UCI div 1 circuit and gave us the result. That's just one example.

What kind of riding do you intend to do? What kind of ride are you looking for? For that kind of cash I'd probably say carbon but if you intend this to be a race bike you might want to go with a super-light aluminum frame. If you're looking for more of a comfortable bike for more general riding go carbon, and you might want to check out Ti or steel, both of which will be smoother and longer lasting (I know most top level Al frames are rated for about 10K miles before becoming risky, carbon I dont know)

Racer X/Laggard: I certainly did not mean to exclude ti or steel by any means. In fact I tested a Lemond Buenos Aires recently and it rode very smoothly. Thought I might even move up to a Zurich but I started to give it all a lot of thought. Firstly, I have to consider my current fitness level and age. I am 6.1, 43 y/o, and 178 lbs. That may not seem heavy but I am at 21% body fat which ain't such a good thing. I have mountains nearby that I am determined to get over at some point and after some work when it gets warmer. I rationalize (perhaps incorrectly) that I need about the lightest thing I can afford. I can't get much in the way of ti for my budget and ditto for the carbon. I am in fact RacerX ( since you mentioned them), looking at a Cannondale R2000 since it has some good stuff loaded on that particular frame, is light, and is several hundred bucks less than the ti and carbon frames. Again, I want to be able to climb as well as work myself up to a century at some point (and again, after some work). So at this point, I am willing to put up with some of the harshness associated with aluminum in order to get some scatability and scamper. The steel rides great but I pretty much ruled it out due to the weight. The Lemond Tete de la Course, Victoree, and Maillot Jaune are probably great bikes and lighter than the Zurich but I just can't raise that kind of money. Thanks kindly for your comments and please write if you have any critique on my thoughts as above; I do appreciate them.

Weight. Steel is heavy. No matter what you do to the frame, it's going to be at least 2-3 pounds heavier.
When people are concerned with grams and ounces, it automatically pushes steel out of the running.


Good points.

As has been discussed before though, the people who are worried about 2-3 pounds are often the people with 7-10 pounds of spare tire.

CAAD7 is a world class frame no matter what components you hang off it.

Laggard,
I know alot of people that are concerened with bike weight and the last thing they are is overweight.
Despite trying to discount a drawback of steel by discounting the person buying (or not buying it) doesn't change the fact steel is heavier than the others.

Whether it matters depends on the rider. All I'm saying is that is a big reason people don't buy steel.

Whitemax,

See Avalanche325's new Litespeed Firenze in the following thread. It's Ti, it's light, it's strong, and it's under $2K.

Firenze (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=45271)

-mark

Laggard,
I know alot of people that are concerened with bike weight and the last thing they are is overweight.
Despite trying to discount a drawback of steel by discounting the person buying (or not buying it) doesn't change the fact steel is heavier than the others.

Whether it matters depends on the rider. All I'm saying is that is a big reason people don't buy steel.

Of course. I do see a lot of people who spend a lot of money to save a couple pounds when they should maybe look at themselves first.

I don't know how much money I'd spend to shave off 2 pounds. The thing you have to ask is do you really need to save 2-3 pounds? In other words, what type of riding do you do? Are you simply a 150 mile a week rider who doesn't race? Or is their a legitimate need for you to save that weight?

Take two identical riders and put one on a bike that weighs two pounds more. Realistically, how much faster is one going to climb?

I will always maintain that for 90% of all riders, steel is the best choice when based on a cost/benefit/need analysis. It's all most people really need.

Que sera sera. If it had to be CF or Aluminum? I'd pick aluminum. At least I can completely trust it.

How do you figure that a steel frame is going to be 2-3lbs heavier??? The 853 Pro frames from Lemond last year weighed in at 3.3lbs, a light carbon frame is typically around 2.3lbs and many aluminum frames are in the 2.6-3lb range. Not nearly 2-3lbs heavier!!!

Anyway, on to your question. Best thing to do is just ride both and decide for yourself. I think both can be great riding bikes if they are done properly, and both can be bad. Carbon has a unique feel that some love and others do not. At that price point I would look into a solid aluminum frame with a really nice part spec and especially wheels. You can get carbon framed bike for $2000 or so but your often sacrficing quality in other areas for that. That would be the best all around choice IMO, but if you plan to throw money into it later then maybe going for the carbon frame now might be a good idea. Only you know.


The Litespeed Firenze is a promising looking bike and the part spec is impressive for a $2000 Ti framed bike. I would certainly thow it into the running if it was me.

Whitemax,

I had my maiden voyage on my new Litespeed Firenze. I am unbelievably happy with my decision. This is new from Litespeed and retails at $1999. I had mine converted to full ultegra triple and it was still under $2K. It has a really smooth ride, very light, and if you want to climb, you should really look at it. I am 6ft 198lbs so not a lightweight, but this thing just launches up the hills.

Go to some shops. Ride all the different materials. See what feels right to you. I did ride several AL bikes. A couple were not too rough. There was one that I thought my fillings were going to come out on. So, not all bikes are the same. Carbon is smooth too. The one I found in my price range just didn't fit me right. Then I found the Firenze...........

At the price you are looking at you are not top end but you are not that far from it. I would suggest that you not restrict yourself to the carbon-aluminum area and go to the best area bike shops and ride their offerings in your price range. At that price, you are going to get a very good bike pretty much no matter what you pick. The major difference will be ride and handling. Bikes vary in those characteristics in comfort, performance, stability, speed of turning etc. I would suggest that you go out and test ride a bunch of bikes and go with what you really like and who cares if it weighs 10 ounces more then another offering?

RUST, FATIGUE oh yeah I remember why I stopped riding steel frames. Nothing like buying new frames every other year.

Get the Litespeed.

RUST, FATIGUE oh yeah I remember why I stopped riding steel frames. Nothing like buying new frames every other year.
Another dumb steel remark.

How do you figure that a steel frame is going to be 2-3lbs heavier??? The 853 Pro frames from Lemond last year weighed in at 3.3lbs, a light carbon frame is typically around 2.3lbs and many aluminum frames are in the 2.6-3lb range. Not nearly 2-3lbs heavier!!!

Anyway, on to your question. Best thing to do is just ride both and decide for yourself. I think both can be great riding bikes if they are done properly, and both can be bad. Carbon has a unique feel that some love and others do not. At that price point I would look into a solid aluminum frame with a really nice part spec and especially wheels. You can get carbon framed bike for $2000 or so but your often sacrficing quality in other areas for that. That would be the best all around choice IMO, but if you plan to throw money into it later then maybe going for the carbon frame now might be a good idea. Only you know.


The Litespeed Firenze is a promising looking bike and the part spec is impressive for a $2000 Ti framed bike. I would certainly thow it into the running if it was me.
Thats right,very little weight difference.To many people think steel=heavy. Mymiddle of the road fuji,58cm weighted 18.8 pounds so a better steel could easily weigh sub 18.Unless your racing,how much lighter do you need?

I agree with Laggard. If you want a great ride try the LeMond Zurich. It's right in your price range and will give you a much better ride than aluminum.

Another dumb steel remark.

Amen. The guy must be riding in the ocean.

I am in the market for a new road bike and have about $2,200 to spend. I know that I will ulitimately have to ride a few of both before I decide but I am wondering why it is that some go with aluminum over carbon given that it is supposed to be so much smoother. Is aluminum going to be phased out eventually due to the popularity of carbon? Are their people out there that opt for aluminum and if so, why? I am really struggling with this and appreciate any input from other cyclists. You are most welcome to make recommendations as to a bike in my price range as well. Thanks muchly!

If you can't decide on carbon or aluminum, go for a half and half like the Specailized Tarmac.

http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=6796&JServSessionIdroot=amripzzoyk.j27004

I'd agree with RacerX - frame material is one factor in ride quality, but not the only factor. You ride the whole bike, not just the frame.

Here's an extreme example - the smoothest riding bike in my household has an aluminum frame. The stiffest riding bike has a carbon frame. But, look a little deeper - the aluminum bike is a Cannondale tandem, with 4 cross laced tandem wheels, 30mm wide tires, and my wife on the back seat. The carbon bike is a Trek Y-Foil, with very stiff Rolf wheels, even stiffer Cinelli Integralter bars, and Corsa CX tires pumped up to 130psi. Frame material alone doesn't tell you all that much about ride quality. It's frame plus wheels plus handlebars plus tires plus rider weight plus who knows what else. Ride the whole bike and let your butt decide.

Also have to add that I have one other road bike. It runs a close second to the 'dale in ride quality, a Falcon San Remo. 1970's vintage racer, Reynolds 531 frame, Campy NR group. 30 years old, and still in perfect condition - so much for steel frames not lasting.

There is virtually no difference in ride quality of EQUALLY equipped modern bikes. Do not forget about the wheels besides thinking about picking the right frame material. Modern steel frames are just as good as any other material. Considering your age and your short term riding goals, I would pick the bike that fits me the best with the highest quality components I could afford. In 3-4 years, you'll be thinking about getting another bike anyway. The main thing is to get one as soon as you can, so you don't miss out on any more great rides!

Cheers

There is nothing wrong with steel. There are some great steel tubings out now and some great custom makers.

The value quotient comes into play here:
A good, custom steel frame is going to cost as much or more than a good aluminum or carbon frame.
Of course, it would be custom- but even a "stock" frame from a custom maker can overshadow aluminum or carbon frames in the $2K range.

Weight. Steel is heavy. No matter what you do to the frame, it's going to be at least 2-3 pounds heavier.
When people are concerned with grams and ounces, it automatically pushes steel out of the running.

Race credibility. I don't care about it but obviously alot of people do. TREK sells a ton of their carbon frames for outrageous prices-even though those molds are well over a decade old. Pure profit and every dime they spend on Lance is paying off, hey more power to them. It's a business and Trek is #1
CERVELO. Did anyone give their TT & road frames any attention before CSC & Tyler? Nope. They were not even on the radar. Cervelo was a complete TRI-bike company. Race Cred- it obviously means alot to people.

Titanium- It rides like steel, is stiff like aluminum and featherweight. It is also the most durable of any of the materials. Cost, again, is comparable to a custom steel frame.

Steel frames are coming back into vouge. I've noticed a carbon/aluminum backlash and people enjoying steel frames. They can still be relative bargains, and I cannot fault the performance of a good steel frame-especially from a builder that knows what he's doing.

Material is ONE part of what makes a frame good. "Carbon frames ride better" or "aluminum frames are harsh" are generic statements that ignore all the work good makers put into quality frames.

I have ridden crappy steel bikes. I have ridden beautifuly designed steel bikes. Crappy carbon and great carbon. Lots of crappy aluminum and great aluminum.

Cannondale, for example, has a great aluminum bike. The reason is they have refined their bikes in the UCI div 1 circuit and gave us the result. That's just one example.


A good quality steel frame can be as light as a good aluminium frame. Certainly isn't at least 2 to 3 pounds heavier. Modern steel tubing for example can be used to construct a frame that weighs in the region of 3 lbs. Certainly acceptable in my view unless you happen to be a top racing cyclist who may require an ultra light frame. Steel frames being heavier than than all others simply isn't true any longer.