Originally Posted by
SlimRider
Yes it does! It states that, "energy demands drop sharply when manufacturers work with recycled metal".
Sure. It says that energy demands drop when recycled materials are used. It did not say that it pushed the cost below that of using steel.
Read the
whole article and you will understand that the cost for Ford to produce aluminum bodies for the F150 will be higher than it is to produce steel bodies.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
Also, taken from the horse's mouth (an actual bicycle company)...checkout what Soma states about the cost of aluminum frame production vs chromoly steel:
www.somafab.com/faqs
Read the part where the question asked is, "Why do you do steel, when most people are using aluminum?"
You mean this quote:
What drives the bike industry to use mainly aluminum right now because of aluminum’s low price and relative light weight. But to put it simply, in $500 or less price range, a quality steel frame still offers better ride feel and strength characteristics than an aluminum frame.
It looks like a bad cut and paste job. Something is missing between "now" and "because" so I'm not sure what exactly they meant to say. They definitely mention weight and low cost but they don't say it's cheaper than steel. Remember that carbon is an increasingly common frame material and compared to that or titanium, aluminum is cheaper.
The "$500 dollar or less" comment would imply that they can't build a bike out of aluminum in that price range which is comparable in quality to a steel frame of the same price (at their volume anyway). They say nothing about $500 or more.