Cyccommute says:
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.
Cyccomute, I happen to own four bicycles. One of them is the Trek 7.5FX. If it's heavier than the oldest chromoly steel bike that I have, I most certainly can't detect it! However, I'm a fairly strong guy and sometimes I have trouble distiguishing between feather weights. Besides, as men, if were not racing, what do we care about an extra pound or two! What we should really be concern about, is our overall investment, and whether we'll be able to cycle a decade from now when the economy might be in even worse shape. Sure, an aluminum bike might feel light and look shiny today. However, its lively service may very well begin to subside and begin to weigh heavily upon our minds as time transpires. Heaven forbid, if we should experience any medium impactive forces upon our aluminum frames. Aluminum tends not to be too forgiving, you know. No major bicycle manufacturer is going to honor any frame warranty where its obvious that the frame was involved in an accident. As a matter of fact, if you read most bicycle warranties, most are not worth the paper they're written upon.
BTW..How do you know that the Atwood weighs so much more than the 7.2FX? ...The Atwood's weight is not published. To say that's it's so much heavier without any evidence whatsoever, I think, would seem to be, just a tad disingenuous.
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.
Nobody's saying anything about ticking time bombs...That's you, attempting to put words in my mouth! However what I am saying, is that the mere use of your aluminum bicycle, each time you use it, brings it closer to its point of failure, due to its already proven limited stress threshold. Aluminum has a short fatigue life. That's just a scientific fact that we simply cannot ignore! It's like a conventional American marriage! Young handsome man meets young beautiful woman. They get married, grow old together, and eventually die!- That's you with your aluminum.
OTOH - I marry an extermely gorgeous and beautiful woman who has special DNA. She simply gets better with time. She does not and cannot age! Time, simply doesn't affect her! I never feel inclined to cheat, because to me, she's just as beautiful thirty years after our marriage, as she was the very day that I first married her. That's me with steel!
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.
Yes, steel bikes do break! However, they almost always break at the joints where they can be welded back together again. That's easy with steel. It's not so easy and reliable afterwards, with aluminum. Also, when those cracks and points of breakage do occur with aluminum, as a result of impact, that breakage can occur anywhere, because aluminum is more highly susceptible to random stress point failure.
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.
Who said anything about aluminum exploding? That's not what aluminum does! Aluminum snaps! It breaks! I know. I've heard it snap before and I can assure you, it's not a very pleasant sound.
If, as you say Slim, aluminum has no place in regular riding, why are there so
many aluminum mountain bikes on the market?
Have you been smoking again or something? ...Where'd you get that from?...
I never said that!!!
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.
Yes, I know! Now this is one issue that needs to be seriously addressed. I personally, would like to see more chromoly steel frames in MTN biking. As a matter of fact, most freeriding MTN bikers would prefer chromoly to aluminum, just like most BMX cyclists. In fact, most successful, dirt jumping, freeriding MTN bikers, carry the value of chromoly steel with them from the BMX experience. It's only the BMX and DH MTB
racers who appreciate the composition of the aluminum bicycle frames more so than that of chromoly steel.
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.
What? ...Do you mean, they couldn't answer those simple questions?...Darn!
Aluminum wheels, do break! Aluminum handlebars, do break! Aluminum seatpost, do break! Where have you been that you don't know that information?
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
No. We're not talking about more than an ounce, because the topic was solely about the weight of a threaded versus a threadless headset, only. Not all of those other components, that you've just now, most propitiously thrown into the mix!
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.
All I ask, is that you type what you mean to say, Cyccomute. Otherwise, readers will be forced to mind-read. Of course, we all know what an impossible feat of amazement that could prove to be!
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.
Much better, Cyccomute! Now, let's see if you can continue to do such good work!
So the Atwood would be a step up from, say, a 7.7FX because it's a steel bike? Really?
Cyccomute, if you were left alone overnight at a well-supplied LBS, by opening time first thing in the morning, I'm certain that you would have a steel bicycle frame with the best of well-installed components. The likes of which would surpass that of either the Trek 7.7FX or the FX+. That would most certainly be at least one step up from say, a Trek 7.2FX! I say that, not only because you would have properly installed much better components on the bicycle, but because, that bicycle's frame is made of steel, too!
I doubt that Trek thinks so.
From what I know about Trek's customer service folks and their people on the ground, I'm not too certain that I'd give two shakes about what Trek thinks or doesn't think!
-Slim
PS.
BTW - I happen to agree with MechBgon, as well!
