SlimRider

This poll is for those of you who have either lost a beloved aluminum bicycle in the past, or who have owned, used, and are still riding an aluminum-framed bicycle today, for over 15 years.

Please vote in the total number of years your aluminum framed bicycle gave you service, before its unfortunate demise.

After voting in the longevity of your aluminum framed bicycle, please feel free to comment on is eventual end or whether it's still going strong.

Thank you!

- Slim

Scrockern8r

I expected it to last for the remainder of my lifetime. Unfortunately, the bike sat for a long time and one of the BB cups welded to the shell. When the BB went out, the threads were destroyed during removal. I could have fixed it if I really want to, but purchased a new bike instead. (Yes, the new one is also aluminum.)

Sixty Fiver

This is a terrible poll... your bias is obvious.

By itself, time is a terrible measure of use as I might have a 12 year old aluminum bicycle that has less than 1000 km on it or may have an aluminium bicycle that has seen 12 years of constant and severe use and seen well over 40,000 km and is still going strong. There is no poll answer for the "more than 10 years".

My 1957 Peugeot is still running like new and is 54 years old... does that mean that this is the most incredible bicycle ever or is it because in 54 years she has been ridden less than 1000 km ?

Shimagnolo

1994 Cannondale M700.
Only the frame, fork, and handlebar are original.
No idea how many miles are on it.

Sixty Fiver

I do enjoy this forum immensely... my post count should be an indicator of that.

And if you were to read through those posts you would find many comments about how time is generally irrelevant when it comes to bicycle wear... use and conditions under which a bicycle are used are the determining factors. Light recreational use is a lot different than commuting every day, something I consider to be severe use.

When someone tells me that they have been riding their bike for three years that tells me very little as in three years I will ride between 30 and 40 thousand km whereas someone else might only ride 3000 km.

And I have nowhere to cast a vote as the question and "less thans" speak to failure of the bicycle and in many cases it won't be the frame but the surrounding components that wear out and replacement may not be financially feasible while the frame itself may be just fine.

Hope you can understand my thinking here...

fishymamba

Hmm I'm not voting since my CAAD 9 is only 1 year old and it is still going. I'll come back and vote when it breaks, hopefully in 5-10 years.

GriddleCakes

Seriously? It's glaringly obvious that you assume that most Al frames will fail in under 15 years. The only two options available in your poll are 1) failed in fewer than 15 years (broken down into 5 categories), and 2) still going after 15 years. You mention the failure of Al frames both in the title of the poll and twice more in the initial post.

You have excluded from your poll everyone who has owned an Al framed bicycle for 14 years and fewer whose frame has not failed, the only reason for which that I can see is that you are selectively polling for Al frame failures. The bulk of the use of Al as a frame material has occurred within this time frame, but only owners of failed frames are given a poll option. Your conclusions are assumed and your poll is biased.

There are no options on your poll that represent any of the four Al frames in my house. One is brand new, never ridden and waiting for me to finish a wheelset: hasn't failed. One is about ten months old, has been ridden one AK winter and summer, sees daily usages of between four and 25 miles, five to seven days a week: hasn't failed. One is six years old, saw both daily commuter/utility service and trail bike status year round in both AK and CA for five years and many thousands of miles, and is currently stripped and waiting for a new designation: hasn't failed. One is the first adult bike that I bought, 11 years old now, saw over 6000 miles a year for the first five years of its life as my year round commuter/utility/trail bike back when I didn't own a car, continued seeing daily year round commuter use as my lady's bike since I gave it to her six years ago, and has survived year round duty in Anchorage, AK and Bellingham, WA for over a decade and tens of thousands of miles: hasn't failed.

Your poll is restrictively exclusive, and as such is pretty useless as a tool to find anything other than the survival of Al frames built more than 15 years ago, or to count broken Al frames without a comparison to surviving, sub-15 year frames. We get it, you don't like aluminum. You love steel and carbon. Do you need to post so much about it? Wouldn't these frame material threads (of which you've created I don't know how many, because I've lost count) be better suited for the framebuilding forum?

Dude, 65er has, like, a hundred bikes; there isn't enough time in one man's lifespan to give them all proper road/trail time. I'm amazed that he's able to ride as much as he does, and do so much for his local bike community, and still have time to come on BF and dispense useful and relevant advice to anyone who seeks it. Unlike some people.

-G'Cakes, who is only signing his post ironically, because who seriously signs posts? We all know who the post is from, it says it right next to the post. Duh.

p.s.- please go back to the helmet thread in A&S, your contributions are sorely missed.

HokuLoa

:::groan::: Slim, you may have meant well and I've certainly been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt lately but please consider a little advise and leave the science (include polling and statistics) up to others. You have shown yet again that unbiased science is NOT your forte. I mean this with the best and friendliest intention but if you can't see the fundamental flaw and bias in this poll/thread as you couldn't in your other numerous "scientific" critiques of aluminum then your bias is blinding you.

I am open minded but this is getting a bit ridiculous. First you repeatedly rail against aluminum and CF in favor of steel as the "only" "real." Then you FINALLY soften to reality and become a public CF fluffer and moderate on aluminium. Now you post a poll that even high school statistics students would point out as a flawed and most likely biased survey. Come on man, for the good of your thread-thin credibility please see the light.

Oh, and FYI it isn't necessarily that people "don't like you" when they call out your threads. The problem is your threads are often so transparently full of BS and easily debased. That you cannot see that yourself when you get a well explained responses is clearly the problem. So don't dismiss them as an "I dislike like you" response when really you should be internalizing it as "you are off base and perhaps should reconsider more critically."

Machka 

They don't???

I've been keeping track of the distance I've ridden for the past 21 years. How about you?

HokuLoa

You know Slim, I actually popped back in to openly alter/retract my post with a strikethrough and a softened approach but being called a liar is where I draw the line. I don't lie and I approach everything sincerely and rationally even if my objectivity isn't always conveyed through the web. So I'll leave my prior post unedited and just address your latest so try not to assume I'm being condescending.

Your polling question right off the bat is the start of your bias as it establishes the assumption of a dead bike. The polling options solidify that bias further by leaving only two possible groups to respond (those with a dead bike or those with a still working bike over 15yrs). You excluded the vast majority of the population (aluminum bike owners) by your wording. In polling this NECESSARILY leads to a set of results that are fundamentally biased do to the format of the poll. This has nothing to do with ME wanting inclusion. I actually am both excluded and included which is another problem entirely with the poll.

Yeah, now I think maybe YOU need a little "honesty" check. For a period you emphatically and repeatedly posted that AL and CF had no place in the consumer bike market. You did so with a thread you titled "the AL hoax" (paraphrased) which you conveniently asked be removed unless I am mistaken. You went on and on about the inferiority of AL frames and how they would not last, were fundamentally weak, and were not suitable for consumers. You most certainly did rail against AL and CF with your opinionated but almost completely unsupported "science." All this while your sig claimed "only steel is suitable for touring" and other such nonsense. So you call ME a liar???! Please....

As for you objectivity, you continued to rail despite numerous members with well established reputations and professional qualifications respectfully pointing out your scientific inaccuracies as well as other theoretical fallacies. You had your opinion, and quantifiable facts clearly did not matter to you. So in that light with this latest biased poll, does it not seem logical for others to question YOUR objectivity??

I've not lied and MY facts are straight. I don't pump myself as some authority but I do voice opinion when I know what I'm talking about. In this case you have indeed shown a long history of bias in regards to frame material and whether this latest poll reflects that particular bias or not, it IS without a doubt biased. At least have the intellectual integrity to admit that even if you are going to play revisionist to your own BF history.

I'm often not sure you do Slim. "Politeness" aside, I've seen you completely dismiss valid and well supported counters to your claims with the "you don't like me" attitude. This is the web and not everyone uses emoticons and flowery language. For me "civility" is not calling someone a liar when not once have they lied. Calling someone's claims BS is perfectly civil when you've laid out perfectly how inaccurate they are. Rough and tumble maybe but perfectly civil. Not personal, but brutally honest. So you can play revisionist and call me a liar who dispenses BS but I can establish clearly where that description aptly fits you but I defy you to substantiate that claim in my posts. If you could I'd be the first to admit it and apologize if it was an inaccuracy about you. Sadly though Slim, that isn't the case and you post enough about it that I'm not the only one who knows it.

So for now, I wish you best and no ill will but do consider for a moment that others are acutely aware when your bias intentionally or otherwise creeps its way into your threads even if you remain unaware. So when that bias fosters an inaccurate perception of our collective cycling reality it most most definitely rubs many of us the wrong way....

Jimi77

I had a Trek 7000 MTB. I think it was a '90 - bonded frame. Not only did it survive numerous miles, I used to jump that thing off every hit I could find. It saw several 6-10ft drops and I went thru several rims, but frame never failed. I was routinely jumping it in and out of a ~6 foot deep crater by my house for a couple years. Sold it this summer and as far as I know it's still going strong.

rebel1916

Annoying!

edited by Moderators

Juha

I think we're about done discussing aluminium frame longevity here. I'm closing the thread.

--Juha, a Forum Mod