johnknappcc

OK,

So I'm in the process of overhauling my Columbus Steel Frame touring bike. Great ride, very forgiving on the beautifully paved streets of Chicago.

I've also been looking at getting a modern racer, with an aluminum frame, maybe CF.

A few nights ago, I took my wife's Cannondale F700 MTB, because my drivetrain was off. Its a bit small, but the weather was so nice I couldn't resist.

Although it has well maintained rockshock front, this bike literally shook me like crazy. Seriously, I know that Aluminum frames are supposed to be "stiff", I felt nearly every crack in the street. And the potholes, don't get me started.

My old steel bike could run over a curb and you wouldn't even feel it, this Aluminum bike with shocks, vibrated me, even after adjusting shocks.

Is this normal or am I not used to Aluminum frames? There is nothing wrong with the MTB, just had it serviced by the LBS, my wife loves the feel. I'm seriously rethinking an aluminum frame road bike if this is the case, and would CF be any better?

Any thoughts would be appreciated, and arguments are always welcome!

daxr

It all depends. I rode an old steel Schwinn (Le tour I think) last year that I had converted to a single speed, and it was one rough ride. It was lively and comfortable enough to put miles on, but there were roads I just didn't go on because of how it picked up and transmitted road shock.

This year I got a new road bike, a Scattante with an all aluminum frame and carbon fork. It is very smooth and soaks up the road just fine. The same roads I avoided on the Schwinn are pretty ok on the Scattante. I worry about the skinny tires and wheels but they seem to hold up fine. Its as lively as the steel frame and my only complaint is the noodly front end - its definitely not a racer.

Years ago I had a Klein that I raced on, and that was very stiff but lacked the liveliness and feel of the steel bike I trained on, but it had a longer wheelbase than most racing frames so was reasonably comfortable for long hauls and rough roads.

I suspect that you didn't have the best fit on the MTB you rode, and that can make things seem much worse, but I'd just say that my experience is the opposite of yours. I've got a very comfortable aluminum frame, replacing a rough riding steelie. The next step up in frame adds carbon seat stays that are supposed to soak up the shock even better, and Giant even has a 50/50 carbon/aluminum frame. In any case, if I race again I would probably get a nice stiff carbon bike, but for current goals (centuries and rec-riding) the particular aluminum frame I have works very well.

Retro Grouch 

Objectively, there's tons more than enough "cush" in those 2" wide MTB tires to compensate for any difference between a steel or aluminum frame.

johnknappcc

We got slicks on them for the city . . . pumped to the full PSI, so maybe, it just seemed really stiff (especially in the arms). My steel 1986 Schwinn Voyageur feels like butter comparatively. Could it be the rubber grips vs my nice cork bar tape wrap? or the smaller diameter wheels?

I know I'm going apples to oranges, but I expected a much cushier ride, again, my wife says it great.

Who knows, just wondering

zzyzx_xyzzy

A 26" wheel will definitely be more jarring than a larger wheel. And counterintuitively, at equal pressures a wider tire will be harsher. Wider tires give a better ride _when_ they're run at the lower pressures they allow.

AsanaCycles

try a Thudbuster
instantly removes any thoughts of now seemingly miniscule differences in "rigidity"
in fact... now its your friend.

aidy

why on earth would you pump up your tyres to full pressure and then complain it gives you a rough ride?
try 10-20 psi lower

AsanaCycles

on line with the sentiment of a steel touring bike comparing it to a new racing road bike.

its going to be a huge difference
depending on the year, make, geometry of your touring bike...
(more info on your touring bike would be great)

a modern race inspired road bike is going to be a vast difference.

suddenly you are talking about 18lb bikes, and lighter.

Bianchi Coast 2 Coast line is a very nice CF setup, as far as being "supple"
its all very minute difference
but in the saddle, on the hands, feet, etc... there is a difference.

my initial thoughts on this comparison is quite possibly:
the big change in model years, and type of bike vs a new 2009 racing road bike

more input please.

that would help a bunch.

peace...d

JanMM

Pumped my tires up to 100psi over the weekend and the ride was noticeably rough - I'd been lax over the winter on pumpin' 'em up. Today I rode on 80psi front/90psi rear and the ride felt better but not at all sluggish. Well, actually, I am kinda sluggish but, well...............

f4rrest

This seems like a flawed experiment if you intend to compare aluminum to steel.

Panthers007

An aluminum-framed bike is going to handle differently than the steel you're used to. I suggest you take the Cannondale into a vacant parking lot, put on your helmet, and SLOOOOOOWLY put it through it's paces. Cornering, 180's, braking, etc. Start from Square One.

Once you know how to ride an Al-framed bike, you may well learn to appreciate them. They can be great fun when ridden by a knowledgeable rider. But be warned: Most people I've met who bought an Al-bike had no clue about the differences to steel. Bike shops, for some weird reason, generally do not warn their customers about such things. As a result, all these folks ended up kissing the road - some several times. I set 'em straight and they are doing fine now. For awhile there, I thought I was going to be able to buy almost-new Trek's, Cannondales, etc - for dimes on the dollars.

AsanaCycles

wow 86'
i can remember 86'

so 1986 was 23 years ago.

geometry has changed some, the parts have changed a bunch.
wheels, tires, etc...

probably what it really comes down to, if you've had the bike since 86', is that you really like your bike.
anything different, is vastly different.
thats all there is to that

not that cars are bikes
and i really don't like using the analogy
but in 86' a lot of cars still had chokes, variable venturi carbs, etc...
an 09' car is hardly anything close. tire technology alone has changed a ton.
i wonder how many people still push the gas pedal down before they start the car. as if to set the automatic choke.

i had a Schwinn Peloton, a Torelli road bike, all around 86 to 88'
also a Dave Fuso
schwinn High Sierra

the Peloton with downtube shifters, arraya tubulars, 6 speed i think...
the Torelli was 5spd with modolo parts

those bikes were tanks compared to my now 5 year old Fondriest road bike.
whats the big difference?
weight
wheels alone, rotating weight.
carbon cranks, carbon shoes...
ergo shifters, huge change!

johnknappcc

Not complaining, just wondering. I did the high PSI since I figured there would be less resistance on the street riding for my wife. But I will try your suggestion.

johnknappcc

I was only 7, I bought the bike when I was 12 for 50 dollars off a family friend, I could barely touch the pedals.

And yes, this is a totally flawed experiment. I just wanted to make sure that the aluminum was not what was vibrating me, I will try lowering the PSI. I was expecting a cushier ride on the MTB . . .



Compared to . . .



Also, I do love my bike, but I troll craigslist all the time looking for an affordable racer, since I really do like to go fast, in fact I already went over the handlebars on the MTB, and it was a blast! I'm not used to the front brakes working well.

I can't afford a new one right now, so I just wanted to make sure if I get a used al-racer, that it isn't going to be considerably less comfortable.

In the interim, I'm overhauling my current bike (the 1986 Schwinn Voyageur), and so far I'm really enjoying it! The picture was taken a few minutes before I started removing things and cleaning. Keep in mind in the 18 years I've owned it, I've never done anything to it, and it spent the last 4 years outside. Pretty tough bike if you ask me!

GV27

OK, part of that post MUST be sarcastic, right? For a second I thought you were serious! LOL

Panthers007

I am not kidding.

In fact, just last year, a young guy on a shiny-new Cannondale took the corner in front of my house and crashed. He'd turned the handlebars as one would on a cheap steel-frame, and the aluminum Cannondale responded as it would. It went for a circle and sent the rider a** over teakettle. I dropped my paper I was fetching and ran over to him. Aside from being a bike-mechanic, I'm also a trained EMT. Gave him a primary survey and gave him a seat on my doorstep and ran him through the warning signs of head trauma. Then fetched a tool to straighten out his handlebars - the only damage there was to the bicycle.

As I was doing this I asked him if this was his first aluminum bicycle. He looked at me like I just stepped out of a flying-saucer. It was and he'd just bought it. The bike shop hadn't mentioned a thing to him. I ran him through the above suggestion of mine, told him he should get a helmet, and sent him on his way.

AsanaCycles

when i look at those 2 bikes, i try to form a picture
the Cdale looks to me to be either a 16" or 14" frame
(the stem is very long, and more than likely your wife is not fitted on that bike very well, she would probably be much more comfortable with a zero rise, 90mm stem, as compared to that super long, i would not be surprised if it where a 125mm, negative rise stem. actually, if you simply turn the stem over, that will make a big difference.)

the Schwinn is big, bigger than a 56cm, 58, maybe something around 60-62cm?
probably measured as something like a 21" frame.

what I'm getting at is fit.

the Cdale, obviously the stem can not be raised, other than flipping the stem around.

the picture i have in my brain, is that you are tall, and while riding the MTB you were very much bent over, a lot of your weight was placed very far forward, etc...

perhaps the reason why the bar ends are tilted upward so much.

the difference in frame material between those two bikes is not going to be the significant contributing factor to your "ride experience"

the significant factor is going to be "fit".

if you look at those two bikes

using your Schwinn as the reference, obvious, since that is actually the bike you ride, and more than likely its a close fit. for sure its what you are accustomed to.

on the Schwinn, note the saddle to handlebar height difference (or ratio, if you will)
note the stem length
note where the the "flat" section of the road bar is in reference to the axle of the front wheel, same thing with the brake hoods, and drops.
note how the fork bends forward
note the BB (bottom bracket) drop (or height if you'd prefer)

also note how little seatpost is showing.
(more than likely, in a modern road racing frame geometry, if you were riding a bike with that little amount of seat post showing, you'd be riding a frame that is too big for your inseam... more than likely... thats a generalized statement)

note how high the stem has been extended out of the headset.
(a nice convenience that quill type stems allow. which is easy height adjustment and amount)

attached are 2 pics
one is a 1996 Colnago
the other is a 2004 Fondriest (i think it's an 04'... i forget)

i know the pics are a little bit at an angle

what I'm getting at is the seat height, and how much seatpost is exposed
note the handlebar to seat ratio
where the bars are at in respect to the front axle
etc...

that is a very typical "road racing" set up. I'm 5'10" and for the most part, the top of the saddle to the center of the BB spindle, is around 29.5". my inseam, barefoot, on a level surface is around 33"

blah blah blah...

its about fit is what i'm saying.

your fit on the Schwinn puts you very much in an upright position.
(i can only imagine, being that there are no pics of you on your bike... really this is bike shop kind of stuff, where someone would go over all this stuff in person with you.)

an expensive bike that does not fit
vs
a cheap bike that fits

well... you get the picture.

newer bikes, their geometries, etc...
I'm not saying that the measures of your schwinn can not be replicated
what I am saying is that new geometries are simply different.

there's a bunch to go over
too much effort for my typing at the moment (and that says a lot being that i type like crazy)

its all about fit.
believe me
honestly
if you got a new bike
you'd be so blown away...
as you've thought about CF
on that note, I really like the Bianchi C2C (Coast to Coast) line up
https://www.bianchiusa.com/09-bicycle...-105-comp.html
they make adjustable stems that could be used to raise the handlebar height, and get you very close to your current positioning.
as time goes by, perhaps, you start to use your "core" muscles more, and begin to be comfortable holding your upper body, up, while leaned forward more, and not putting too much pressure on your hands.

the modern "road racing" form, as far as upper body is concerned, is very much a kin to a dumbbell bench row
https://www.healthline.com/hlbook/strt-dumbbell-row
albeit the above link is exaggerated in reference to bicycle position, but its very much "ish".
the gist is
that you want to be leaned over
when your hands are on the flats of the bar, or on the hoods
your forearms should be parallel to the ground
and very much, quite possible (optimally), you want your elbows to be very close to your knees, when at the top of the pedal stroke.

for me, personally, my fit, is that while I'm on the flats of my bar, leaned over, I try to round my back a bit, breath thru my abdomen, and my elbows are actually a bit further back than my knees.
so when i pedal in that "form", my elbows are outward of my knees. actually they are very much almost glancing each other.
that is a form that you'd use while doing a lead out
fast form for flat terrain, pulling a group, or trying to hide from the wind in general

this is a whole tangent... you can watch a ton of cycling video and note positioning and form.
that is. how they are fit on their bikes, and how they ride them.

again... you have to realize those guys are pro athletes, they have workouts, etc...
many people simply do not have the core strength to hold themselves up
much less able to pedal in smooth round circles.
heck... i'm constantly working on a smooth powerful round power transfer

anyways...
rant off...

its about fit.

peace...d

johnknappcc

Wait what? One I wouldn't consider Tenax Columbus Tubing a cheap steel frame, and Second don't bikes just turn when you turn the handlebars? I thought that is what they were for? Does the AL make that much a difference (and if so why) or was the person an idiot?

AsanaCycles

I'd say, most significantly, all of that has to do with fit, and geometry
not so much as steel vs aluminum
there are a ton of modern steel bikes out there compared to alu, that all have very similar geometries
and of course, familiarity, & rider skill

Panthers007

I am saying the person was likely used to cheaper steel-framed bikes with lots of flex. Aluminum is a rigid panel with hardly any flex at all. This makes it respond quite differently to turns, etc. than steel. Another person I peeled off the ground summed it up as such: "It's not forgiving."

Here's a simple trick to demonstrate this: Hold a steel-framed bike by the seatpost and the stem. Place your foot on the bottom-bracket and push. You'll feel it flex and spring back. Now do the same with an aluminum-framed bike. Hardly any flex and no spring.

I own both aluminum and high-end steel bikes. I love 'em both - but I don't ride 'em the same ways.

Retro Grouch 

Well it's not enough for me to notice.

I own a 1992 Bridgestone RB-2 (lugged steel frame) and a 1999 Klein Quantum Race (welded fat tube aluminum). I run slightly larger tires on the Bridgestone at lower air pressure. If you've got some kind of instrument to measure whatever it is that you think makes a huge difference I'd be glad to test them because subjectively I don't feel any difference that I can't attribute to tires.

johnknappcc

Also being a Good Samaritan, I would have kicked him back down, ran off with his bike, and shouted "I'm doing this for your own good!" Muhahahahahaha . . .

johnknappcc

That is what I figure now, and yes mine is a 23"/58CM frame and I'm 5'11" fits me a like a glove, but we had a rare 60+ degree end winter day in Chicago and I couldn't resist going for a ride (with the ice still on the lake).

Just my bike was missing the crucial BB, chain, and freewheel.

And actually, my wife really likes the handlebars where they are, she is 5'4" and it seems most comfortable for her. The LBS adjusted and sized it for her, very nice guys there!

I'm assuming (when I do find a racer) that I should be looking around 58CM to start? Obviously adjust from there . . .

I think my next purchase will be a single speed 52/16t to build some leg muscle for the a few centuries I'm planning on doing this upcoming summer. Looking at one on CL for 250 keep trying to get him down to 200, he's had to list it 3 times over.

AsanaCycles

the last thing I'll say about "perception" and "rider experience"
is that

we have 5 points of contact on a bicycle

2 hands
2 feet
and our butt/perineum

there are lots of subtle ways to distribute pressure
and it varies on different types of bikes

i.e. if you were on a recumbent, i really doubt there'd be a whole lot of pressure on your hands and feet. mostly applied to your butt.

carbon shoes with keo pedals, and carbon cranks
vs
flip flops on a road bike with those old school "bear trap" style steel pedals

just that example alone, is by far more greater than the minute differences in frame material

riding with a new set of high quality shorts, with new technology chamois, vs riding in board shorts and no underwear on a road bike with steel bear trap pedals, and flip flops...

again...
its about fit
and those 5 points of contact.

that is what is going to influence your Central Processing Center

take at look at this bike.
its my Hunter 29er, custom fit, etc...
its steel
it has TWO top tubes, and its intended for MTB/touring use

just the fact that it has a Thudbuster seatpost
that alone, seriously dampens the shock to my perineum, not to mention i typically use cycling shorts.

technically, if that frame were to be put on a machine and tested for rigidity, it would be much stronger than my road bike. and yet of course, it feels "smoother", only simply in that it has fat tyres, and a thudbuster seatpost.

the reality, is that given the generalized same amount of "power" or "torque" i can put into the frame, the Hunter is much more resistant to flex than my road bike. and yet, the road bike feels "harsh".

the reality, is that braking forces are able to be much greater than what you can put into the bike.

that is to say.

you can apply more force into a bicycle by using the brakes than you can ever dream of putting into the frame by the power from your legs.

there is no way you can accelerate, torque a bike as much as you can apply stress with the brakes.
albeit the stress comes from different directions.

and that is probably the reality of frame stress.
weight, cargo, and braking force.

we are way to vain to believe that our 500 watts of power broke a frame.

its more likely all the pounding it's taken over rough pavement, the holes we hit, the braking force we subject the bike to.

handlebars typically do not break bcz we pulled them apart, but rather they've been pounded for so long and hard that they've become weak, and it just so happened that it broke when pulling on the bars.

keisatsu

Since moving from BMX bikes as a child to MTB and Road bikes, I've owned nothing but aluminum. I've never had a problem with a bike being too stiff.

The steel bikes I've had experience with, feel noodly and corner like winnabegos. Though I wouldn't necessarily place all the blame on the bike being steel, geometry and tubing manipulation plays a big part too.

yeah, my .02

And don't get me started on carbon, until I can drop a carbon bike and not have it completly destroyed, I will never own one (unless someone gives me one, free bikes no matter the material are sweet).