Originally Posted by roccobike
I agree with your comment about carbon fiber use in MTBs, but I'm having a problem about your comparison between steel and aluminum. We have two fairly high end, older Chro-moly (full frame and fork) MTBs (GF Hoo Koo and Nishiki Ariel) along with an 02 Trek Chro-moly MTB (820) and one 05 Rockhopper. The Rockhopper is the lightest of the group, has the best balance, and handles the best. And we all know the Rock hopper is not the top of the line, albeit a good bike. I guess I'm saying I think the trade off from aluminum to steel is worth it for the weight savings and I don't see any performance difference. If anything, the aluminum bike is superior.
I know you can point out that the Rockhopper has better geometry and frame design than the older Chro-moly bikes, that has evolved through the years and I would readily agree. But, I don't see ANY high or mid-range MTB manufacturers returning to much less expensive steel. If it was truly superior or performed the same, someone would be re-introducing chro-moly MTBs. As it is, only a few still make chro-moly bikes like the Trek 820 and their all less expensive.
Hold on there partner. Just because some of the major manufacturers don't produce steel framed bikes anymore don't assume steel is cheaper and/ or an inferior frame material.
The list of frame builders and larger bike companies that are currently offering steel hardtail frames is too extensive to list. They are mostly high end frames with beautiful ride characteristics that aluminum can not produce. Aluminum frames generally are lighter and stiffer. Generally. Great for XC racing but a little less than forgiving on long rides. It depends on what you want to do with your frame.
Each material has its benefits but you can not claim either is superior/inferior globally.