Originally Posted by cyccommute;13711081[QUOTE
]
You say that aluminum is at the bottom of the heap when it comes to
bicycle quiality and longevity. But the industry says otherwise. Look at
mountain bikes, the frames undergo more stress than any other kind of riding and
the vast majority of them are aluminum.
Aluminum is cheap and more easily accessible as a material resource due to it high potential for recyclability. It's much cheaper to recycle aluminum than steel. It's also cheaper and faster to produce bicycles from aluminum, than steel.
There are very few steel mountain bikes in the catalogs of major producers.
That's a trend that has been around since the mid90s.
That's only because, it's a cheaper material that is easier to reproduce, as previously stated. Steel is heavier and costs more to transport. It also costs more to recycle steel than it does, aluminum. Producing bicycle frames from aluminum is faster than producing frames from steel. Also, since its easier to damage aluminum than steel, when aluminum is damage, the cyclist is forced to return to the bicycle market to replenish himself with yet, another bicycle $$$.
And, if steel is the 'premium source' as a bicycle material, why don't
more large producers make more of them especially for applications like mountain
biking? Up until just a few years ago (less than than 5?) bicycle
catalogs were filled with aluminum bikes even at the highest price points
As already stated, the reasons for the industry preferring aluminum over steel, is more related to industry economics$$$, than cyclist's riding comfort and performance satisfaction.
Any bike been around since 1936, has a legitimate claim to longevity. Sure
there are more, and older, steel frames out there but they were made in far
greater numbers than were aluminum bikes of the '30s.
I have personally witnessed larger numbers of failed aluminum frames, than steel frames. Aluminum has a very small yield capacity, causing it to break rather than bend. This weakness is the primary culprit in the demise of the failed aluminum bicycle.
I personally, don't see too may older aluminum bicycles...Where are they all?
Finally, I'll ask the question I always ask in the 'steel vs aluminum'
debate: If you are so concerned about longevity and strength, why aren't
you riding on steel wheels with steel stems and steel seatposts and steel
handlebars and steel crank sets? You are the one who said that "aluminum
is an inferior metal when it comes to fatigue life, stress thresholds, and
flexibilty as compared to steel"
Since aluminum is a cheap material to work with, it is the preferred workhorse material of the bicycle industry. It also does not succumb to oxidation as easily as steel. Due to these most salient properties in addition to the fact that aluminum is light in mass, bicycle manufacturers find it most profitable to supplant the superior metal, steel with this most excellent economical substitute.
Also, whereas the wheels are concerned, the aluminum rim legitimately deserves a higher status than steel, due to its higher coefficient of friction when coupled with composite braking materials.
However, overall aluminum is a fair substitute for steel, when time is not a factor. It will provide a cyclist with an acceptable degree of service for a limited time period.
In time, it really doesn't serve the cyclist well, since it's such a transient recycling product.
- Slim
