Originally Posted by
SlimRider
Yes Axiom, there is but one major difference, and that the frame material. The Atwood is made of steel.
Yes, The Atwood has a steel frame. Therein lies
one of the differences. And you are right that it is a major one. Because the bikes are similar in geometry and price, they probably use a similar volume of metal to make the frames. That will make the Atwood a much heavier bike to ride than the FX.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
This statement is fundamentally true Axiom. However, one must always remember that aluminum intrinsically has a short fatigue life. This essentially means that everytime it's utilized for the purpose for which it was made, it is getting closer to its point of failure. No matter how long that time may be, that finite point does exist. It exists in both theory and application and can be proven in any well-equipped laboratory. Aluminum also lacks yield strength or yield capacity. That simply means that in an accident, or whenever an event occurs where the bicycle's aluminum tube is subjected to impulse forces, the aluminum tube will tend to snap, break, collapse, or fail, as oppose to just bending. At this point, the prediction or anticipation of years of service, also fails.
mechBgon has said it best. I will add that aluminum is not anymore likely to "snap, break, collaspse or fail" than steel like some steel proponents will have you believe. There are hundreds of thousands of aluminum bicycles in service and they aren't ticking time bombs. You know that Slim and all your post does is make you look like a fear monger.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
Of course, this is not to say that there is no place for aluminum framed bicycles, because there are a few venues that exist, where aluminum bicycles serve us well. One of which would be racing. The success of road racing aluminum bicycles has lasted for years, but now seems have given way to the prominence of carbon. While carbon fiber is still having difficulty entering into the downhill mountain bike racing arena, aluminum still reigns as the favored frame material. Aluminum is also favored in BMX racing! However, if you're not racing a bicycle, and you're merely commuting, or perhaps cycling just for the exercise or enjoyment, then aluminum might not be your wisest frame of choice. I say this because steel, if kept dry will last for decades, despite the frequency of its use. There is no time limit or fatigue life limit that continual use will approach, when used appropriately. Therefore, chances are, that the Atwood can be willed to your grandkids and still be quite functional. However, the aluminum-framed FX would have long ago been recycled, and at the same time of the will reading, would be some part of a future coffee maker.
Steel bikes can, and do, break. I've broken two of them. They didn't bend. They didn't slowly crack. Both (and one broke at least 3 times) went 'ping' and snap at the place where they broke. I've broken steel parts and they broke with the same mode.
I've broken aluminum parts and aluminum frames, too. All of them broke slowly over a relatively long period of time. They did develop cracks but they didn't explode.
If, as you say Slim, aluminum has no place in regular riding, why are there so many aluminum mountain bikes on the market? Mountain bikes go through more abuse than any commuting bike will
ever experience and yet it is the metal of choice for so large a part of the market that steel is almost never used for mountain bikes today.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
Yes, and each of those aluminum parts, will share in a shorter fatigue life and lack the same yield capacity, as the same frame material from which they were all sprung. Besides...You're talking less than one ounce of weight here?
I'll ask you the same question I've asked others: Do you ride with steel components like rims, handle bars, seatposts, stems, etc. because if you are so concerned about the "short fatigue life" (something that you are blowing all out of proportion), then you should replace all of the aluminum parts on your bike that could cause you to crash if they break. Aluminum wheels? Replace them because they are hoops of death. Handlebars? Replace them because they are going to fail suddenly and catastrophically. Seat post? Replace it before it gives you a self inflicted proctology exam.
And,no, we aren't talking about 'an ounce of weight here'. A steel stem, steel seatpost, steel headset
and steel frame are going to make the bike significantly heavier than the 7.2FX
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
I think what Cyccomute was attempting to say here, is that the Trek 7.1FX and perhaps the 7.2FX are near the bottom of the Trek FX hybrid line-up. However, it is most definitely a misnomer to assume that the entire Trek FX line-up is at the bottom of the entire Trek line, because there are different bicycle types that feature different models of bikes, that fill the various needs of world cyclists. The hybrid FX line includes the 7.7FX and the FX+ models. These bicycles either have 105 drive trains or Deore LX, respectively. What's so "bottom of the Trek line" about that?
Context, man, context. Rather then type 7.2FX each time I talked about
the bike that axiom is looking at I used the short hand "FX". If you read the post in the context of
the bike that axiom is looking at , what I said is very clear. To make it clearer, just replace "FX" with 7.2FX and it becomes crystal clear.
If you need it any clearer, the
Trek 7.2FX is an entry level bike that is far better than
any bike from Walmart or other big box store.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
Again, this makes absolutely no sense at all, unless you're placing this statement within the context of other Trek FX hybrids or other hybrids made by other reputable bicycle manufacturers. The FX is most definitely a quality line of aluminum-framed hybrid bicycle. Trek makes superior aluminum-framed bicycles! And I almost choked to get that out!
You are grasping at straws. What I said is very clear and was meant partly in jest. But it is true that the more money you pay, the lighter bikes get. That's the way
all bicycle lines work.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
No. Buy it, if you want a quality aluminum-framed bicycle. You can always upgrade your components on any bicycle, that will improve upon its overall function. However, there's only one way to step up from an aluminum-framed hybrid bicycle, and I'm certain that at this time, I don't have to repeat myself.
So the Atwood would be a step up from, say, a 7.7FX because it's a steel bike? Really? I doubt that Trek thinks so.