I imagine that the OP is more confused than ever. I can't comment on the difference because I have not put more than a mile on any but steel bikes. My advice is to decide what you are looking to buy and then go to a shop and try them out.

Good Luck.

I always wanted to try a wooden bike - may make myself one someday.

This is absolutely correct but in today's market, steel is mostly sold as very heavy entry level bikes or as very high level and expensive hand made custom frames. There are exceptions such as the various Surlys, Trek's 520 and a few other mid-level specialty and touring bikes but, as far as the majority is concerned, steel mostly occupies both extremes.

Aluminum can also be sold as very low quality bikes (see any Walmart bike display) or as high quality bikes but generally occupies the mid-level in price and quality these days. For the big manufacturers (Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc.) their top tier bikes are all carbon fiber and their mid-level ones are aluminum with steel being a rarity.

I've ridden mostly steel and carbon fiber bikes. My experience on one aluminum road bike was harsh and nasty. It was most likely due more to the tires and the way the frame was built than the material used. My modern TIG-welded 853 steel road bike rides very similarly, although it's about a pound heavier than the aluminum. It seems that designers of aluminum bikes tend toward the light, racy and harsh-riding even though they don't necessarily have to.

I have two Treks, a 1995 steel 730 and a 2007 aluminum 7.2 FX and I am riding them concurrently to decide on which frame to upgrade some components. The steel bike has slightly better components and by just lifting each, it's the lighter of the two bikes. Having said that, the aluminum bike feels more responsive and faster.

There are numerous other factors like geometry of the two bikes (close but not exact), crankarm stiffness & length and probably other factors I'm not aware of. I've ridden each bike with the others' tires & wheelset and regardless of what combo I use, my experience supports the "common wisdom" that a steel bike rides more comfortably while an aluminum bike rides more harshly. Also, the aluminum bike is more responsive to acceleration, even though I think it's the heavier of the two.

Don't take those two observations too negatively. The aluminum bike rides fine and the steel bike accelerates fine, there is just a discernible difference between the two.

Once upon a time, there were a couple Aluminum race bike frame builders
using aluminum in standard diameter tubed frames ..

I do remember that most of the roads in Wisconsin were mostly smooth and flat (except maybe near the Dells?) compared to other parts of the country. Unless it different near Oshkosh or something??....
..I suspect a good saddle on your Trek might have helped out too.
Maybe its really much different comfort-wise with larger tubing bikes like a Cannondale. My younger brother, although a Cannondale owner/fan still admits to how he does not like its too stiff and uncomfortable ride.
And this is a guy who back in college with me (in the early 80's), preferred to ride mostly in 100+ degree heat and high humidity during Wisconsin summers while I melt in front of our apartment box fan most of the day.....
So he must have a very high pain threshold....

Chombi

Yes there were, and the frames were flexy as wet noodles and had structural problems. Notice no one makes them like that any more and for good reason.

That was back in the days when they had money to maintain them.

I rode an Alum '88 Trek 1000 (steel fork) for many years on my commute - wasn't a bad ride. I now ride a steel '87 Trek 400 on the same routes and much prefer the ride of this bike. Much of that I'll chalk up to the longer chainstays and geometry of the frame, not to mention one step up larger in tire size more than to the material of the frame.

I had a Cannondale aluminum touring bike I loved. It was fast and very responsive and had a nice ride. I saw a Cadd 2 for sale with a frame that looked like it was torn like paper. I decided if i was going to ride with a loaded touring bike steel lugged frames are stronger. If it does break a local welder could weld it. I had been riding steel frames primarely before the Cannondale and I went back. Just my preference. I'm now riding a KHS touring bike chromoly lugged frame. Not quite as fast, but fast enough and feel safer.

Note that the 'wet noodle' frames didn't seem to slow Sean Kelly down. And the structural problems with some of the frames were due to the fastening method at the joints - not the frame material.

But I think you're missing the main point. If one can build Al frames noted for their comfortable ride relative to steel, albeit at the expense of some additional flexing when pedaling hard and one can also build Al frames noted for their stiffness when sprinting relative to steel, albeit with some sacrifice in comfort then it's not the choice of Al vs. steel that determines comfort vs. stiffness but rather the design choices made in the frame geometry and the tubing sizing.

In todays market, steel is used for mass market low end Bike Shaped Objects that are heavy and horrible.
It is also used for high end, low production rate, workshop and custom made frame that are lightweight, comfortable and durable. They occupy niches such as touring, tandems, fixed gear, recumbent as well as a few classic racebike styles.
Aluminium dominates the production scene for low end of reasonable quality, through the whole of the midmarket and some high end.
It has been noted that Al, Ti and steel all have about the same weight/strength ratio but vary in density.
Ti is 1/2 the density of steel and Al is 1/3 the density of steel.
If you make a bike in the same design, the ti will weigh 1/2 s much and the al 1/3 that of the steel frame.
BUT you need more volume of material to make a strong enough frame so they weigh less but not as much as the numbers indicate.
Within any material, from basic to premium grade, the strength can be increased a lot by alloying and heat treatment and the tubing can be thinned out by careful manufacturing, thus an expensive steel bike is much lighter than a cheap steel bike and even lighter than a cheap Al bike.
My high quality steel touring bike made from old fashioned Reynolds 531 Super Tourist is lighter than most midmarket aluminium hybrids.

I ride alu and steel and mostly I prefer riding a bicycle to not riding.

The Trek bonded aluminum frames were explicitly designed to closely resemble the riding qualities of a steel frame.

This really is a myth. I broke a frame back in the late 80's and had a machinist friend repair it. This is a guy who welds exotic metals, makes pressure vessels and fabricates lots of one off equipment for scientific experiments. He knows his stuff. Even he was amazed at how hard it was to weld the thin steel of a bicycle frame. He said it would be incredibly easy to burn through.

If you want to see a real life example of a repaired bike at a local blacksmith's near Outer Mongolia, look here.

No, they didn't slow Kelly down enough to lose but I expect they didn't help him much either. As I mentioned, the design dissappeared quite quickly and for good reason. And yes, I realize it was the bonded and pinned joints that failed but, even so, aluminum frames that flex that much are prone to rapid fatigue failure. For a racing frame that was replace every year, or even more often, it wasn't a problem but would be for long time ownership.

And, no I haven't missed the point that you can build an aluminum, steel, Ti or carbon frame to have identical flex and riding properties by choosing the appropriate tube diameters and wall thickness. However, aluminum, due to it's fatique properties, is always made stiffer to reduce flex and improve longevity.

Exactly what the local motorsports welding guru said when he saw the welds on my Waterford R-33. He peppered the conversation with lots of colorful metaphors.:thumb:

first of all Cyccommute, your a dick. I would like to see you ride said 1.4lb alluminum frame. Having to use three times the material is what makes them stiffer. My post was certainlly not presented as fact but as opinion and hearsay. If I would have put the word frame behind steel and alluminum it would have been better, agreed but I dont think any of this helps the OP

I can't comment on the metalurgy/frame building aspects of this thread but here is my specific experience .

-- I have a 2004 Cannondale CAAD7 (Alu) frame with Shimano 105 and Ultegra components/Mavic rims on Shimano hubs. Was $1350 new in 2004 (MSRP was 1500)

-- I had a 2005 Jamis Quest Steel (Reynolds 631) frame with pretty much identical components about $1250 new. That frame has since been replaced (car accident) with SOMA frame of similar construction (Tange prestige tubes). Other than Jamis and boutique frame sellers like SOMA and Surly, there aren't a lot of midlevel steel bikes out there.

-- Defer to frame experts out there whether one can make qualitative comparison between CAAD7 and reynolds/tange steel tubes

Cannondale is definitely stiffer and about 1.5 pounds lighter (18.5 versus 20 -- I am a clydesdale so 1.5 pounds give or take is not an issue-- if only I could get the saddle lighter). I notice benefit of stiffness mostly in acceleration or mashing on pedals going up hills.

Jamis/Soma is definitely a bit smoother. I notice this mostly when cruising along on flats.

When riding steel bike in aggressive group rides involving hills and accelerations, I have work a bit harder than when on the Cannondale, so end up more tired at the end of a ride. But on long moderately paced rides, I feel better at the end because of the plusher ride of the steel bike.

I love both bikes and choose the one I ride based on how I am planning to ride that day.

Let's start with a grammar lesson, shall we? "your" is a personal possessive pronoun relating to the speaker as in your bicycle or your tires. The contraction you are looking for is "you're" which is a shortening of the phrase "you are" as in "you are wrong" or "you're totally off base" or "you're full of crap". Of course that contraction is usually followed by a cogent argument as to why the subject of "you are" is wrong.

Now on to reading comprehension: I didn't say that you could ride a 1.4 lb aluminum frame. I specifically said that you have to use more material to make an aluminum frame of the same strength as a steel frame. But using more material doesn't make aluminum stiffer. You could use solid rod that is the same diameter as a steel frame's tubes and the bike wouldn't be that much stiffer. Aluminum gains it's stiffness from the tube diameters which resist bending, i.e. are stiffer, better than smaller tubes with thicker walls.

Now let's (a contraction of "let us") discuss opinion. You are entitled to your opinions but you aren't entitled to your own facts. Perhaps an example would be in order: For example it is your opinion (notice the proper use), that I am a dick. You are entitled to that opinion. However, my parents didn't give me the name "Richard", so, in fact, I am not a Dick.

If you present an opinion on a fact that is faulty...like "Alluminum is very stiff so it has no give, none" (your spelling, by the way)...then expect it to be challenged. Facts are facts, especially when it comes to materials. They can be measured. They can be tested. They are the same everywhere with in our little corner of the Universe (and likely everywhere else in the Universe). It is a fact that steel is stiffer than aluminum. It is a fact that steel weighs more then aluminum. It is a fact that steel is stronger than aluminum. It is also a fact that both of these materials can be used to make very good frames.

Finally 'hearsay' is defined as "information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." If you base your opinions on 'hearsay' then you are stating that you have no direct experience concerning the topic on which you speaking. Basically you are passing along rumors. Do you really want to say that?

correcting my gramar and spelling is further proof of you being a dick. AND THIS STILL DOESNT HELP THE OP. I am certain we could get opinions on here with regard to frequencies of both materials and have a good ole time however this STILL WOULD NOT HELP THE OP. So if I understand your OPINION, you prefer alluminum to steel, so noted

I guess you were right about that.

I found Dick's answer to be one of the most informed and useful. I learned something anyway, except what kind of bike frame he rides. trying to hide something Dick? Rick? Rich? Richie?

If you don't want your spelling and grammar corrected, domn't make so many spelling and gramar mistakes.

What helps the OP less than cyccommute is you spouting off nonsense and factoids you made up yourself about subjects that many people actually do have some knowledge.

On a related topic, the political instability in the Middle-East is entirely caused by a misinformation campaign launched by the people of Guam and New Zealand. Anyone who calls BS on this is a DICK!!!11

Wow. I see a 2ndGen zinger thread in this guy's near future.

I've long harbored deep distrust of the Kiwis

I'm no connoisseur of bikes, but I can now relate to this. I own a '94 Trek 730 and in 2005 I bought a Raleigh C500, well just recently it died on me (needs a lot of repairs -- money). So for now I went back to riding my Trek which has a CroMo frame http://www.bikepedia.com/quickbike/B...=730&Type=bike as opposed to the 7005 aluminum frame of the Raleigh C500 http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/la...2_5672crx.aspx

I don't know when I first noticed the flexing feel of that bike (C500), but I remember on a few occassions looking for cracks in the frame and always keeping the tires inflated a little above the max to reduce the flexing sensation -- there are no shocks on this bike. When I started riding my Trek 730 again I realized that the flexing I was feeling in the C500 was actually the frame, because the Trek 730 had no flexing whatsoever. It feels so good to ride a bike that doesn't have a performance-stealing flex. Now I just need to find one with a 52 chainring

Well, my decision was easy to make when the guy at the bike shop reminded of one true problem with steel. It rusts. I'm riding in anything and everything, salt/sand, snow, sleet, freezing rain. Anything from short 10 mile hops to 200+ mile one day rides. I know what the underside of my current Cannondale looks like and when he added steel rusting into the equation...it made my decision very simple. I know I don't have the money for Ti or carbon fiber.

I am an old, oveweight, fart (not a Dick, as my given name isn't Richard, either). I love to ride, and live in an area surrounded by great riding country. I am also pretty well surrounded by folks with different perspectives on frame materials, but happily most are not as emotionally attached to their opinions as many in the frame material discussion. That said...

I commute on some pretty bumpy streets on my aluminum cyclocross bike. And I ride on some nasty chip-seal roads on my aluminum road bike. Even with 28's on the 'Cross bike and 23's on the road bike, I frankly have nothing at all to complain about with ride quality on either bike. Maybe I just don't understand, but the CX bike was my do-everything bike most of last year - from commutes to centuries to CX races - and it was just fine. I did notice a difference in responsiveness when on the road bike, and I can hold a notably higher average speed on the same course on the road bike than the CX, but ride quality is just fine by me.

Many of us will argue to the death to justify our purchase or our opinion. I appreciate Cyccommute wading in with some facts on materials (wisely staying away from CF), but facts will merely be ignored by those that don't want to be confused or refuted by them.

My take is that the OP can do well with either material (as long as rust isn't a potential issue for him), OP just needs to ride and decide. I was convinced that I wanted a steel bike along the way, and may end up with one at some time, but I am very happy with my Al bikes, being a somewhat budget-constrained cyclist (when I buy my n+1, I generally have to do the same for my Bride. Actually, a nice problem...). I do some day want a Ti 325 frame, since my employer developed the alloy and supplied most of the Ti for frames for a number of years (and my autograph in on almost every test report on the outgoing material).

There are pluses and minuses to all of the frame materials: Steel, Ti, Al, CF - having worked with them all, one can choose any of the four and have a nice frame. I personally do not care for CF, but that is me and is based on my experiences working with the material, not really on fact, just opinion. But as an engineer, it is maddening to see folks fighting the fight of this-material-over-that when basically unarmed with facts.

OP - ride the bikes. Tally your components, comfort, and looks (yes, the esthetics do matter), and pick the bike you like. Aluminum or steel, you'll be pleased.

I apologize for confusing your now-made decision but a properly internally protected steel frame can last for decades even under the conditions you describe.

Frame Saver or Amsoil HPMP are spray-on rust inhibitor treated waxes dissolved in a volatile carrier. You strip the frame and spray a good amount into each frame tube and stay and the fork blades. Roll it around to distribute the liquid, let it dry over night and repeat at least once more. If you are at all careful about touching up exterior paint nicks, the frame should then be an heirloom.

I treated an '83 Trek 400 Cr-Mo frame with Frame Saver when I bought it used and rode it for 10 years as my rain/snow/beater bike. That frame was still as solid as new when I gave it to my son-in-law last summer to convert to a fixie. My grandchildren will probably inherit it.

As an aside, aluminum is not completely corrosion proof and can be damaged by salt exposure too. The only really corrosion-proof metal frames are titanium.

those welds look like they were done by a DC welder that had no idea what they were doing. I have done a little welding and could have done better then those on a DC. Better to use a tig welder where the heat can be controled and not burning holes thru the tubes.

You've missed the point. People who own steel bikes, especially touring bicyclists who own steel bikes, say that they can get them repaired anywhere...even in Outer Mongolia. That bike was repaired...badly...very close to Outer Mongolia. My machinist friend did have access to a TIG and has highly developed welding skills and even he was surprised at how difficult it was to weld thin steel tubes.

Additionally, if the welder in China had had access to a TIG, he could also repair aluminum which makes the argument for steel and against aluminum moot.