Another question someone might be able to help me with: I've been reading a lot off "hi-ten vs Chromo" debates here and elsewhere. In general, everyone seems to agree: Chromo beats hi-ten hands down, by a mile... Occasionally, someone will counter "yeah but hi-ten is fine, really, if you're not a pro BMX rider jumping of tall buildings..."

So, I know Chromo is much stronger for the same weight. Knowing that, you'd expect two comparable bikes from these two materials to have very different weights. That is, assuming that the manufacturer will build a bike strong enough but not ridiculously over-strong, you'd save weight by using Chromo. But, looking at the difference between hi-ten and Chromo bikes around my price-range, they all way roughly the same (around 10.5 kilograms), regardless of the material used.

Does this mean the hi-ten ones are actually unacceptably "weak"? Or are the chromo ones redundantly strong? Even more confusing, a some manufacturers seem to have changed from chromo to hi-ten in the last few years within one model. For instance, the SE Lager used to be full chromo (around 2007) and is now full hi-ten... What little I can find about the Creme Vinyl Solo suggest this used to be full chromo as well (whereas now only the fork and seat tube are chromo).

Also, a lot of people build their FG's themselves using old (vintage) frames. Which are often hi-ten, I assume... so, are they actually not that good?

Based on what I've found, I'm loathe to buy a hi-ten bike, especially if I can get a chromo bike for the same money. But am I right in this, or is the difference not as big as suggested...? I won't be putting the bike through a lot of hardship most likely, but I'd still rather not pay the same for something inferior, even if I wouldn't really notice the difference (does that make sense?)