All else equal, what would be the better option for an urban commuter(Atlanta)?

Chromoly steel is the best bicycle frame material for most urban commuters.

- Slim

References:

www.brightspoke.com/c/understanding/bike-frame-materials.html

https://talu.com/materials.php

It depends!
Up to a certain price point, you aren't too likely to be able to notice too much of a difference in ride quality, quite honestly, given similar geometry/purpose and quality. In general, chromoly does a better job absorbing road shock and is likely to have a slightly "springier" feel at the bottom bracket, which many prefer.

I personally prefer chromoly frame for a variety of reasons.

Whichever is used on the bike you end up liking to ride the best. Good bikes can be made of either one, so choice of frame material would be way down the list of my priorities. More important would be that the frame geometry fits you comfortably and gives the type of handling characteristics you like, the component quality, that it'll accept the tire size you want and any desired accessories (fenders, racks, etc.).

+1

When you say "all else" in the aluminum vs. steel question, I think we need to split some hairs over what's included in that "all". The frame is arguably the most important component on the bike. The material a frame is made of is usually not its most important characteristic. Things like construction quality, geometry, tube thickness and shape, accessory mounting points, etc. are all important and can collectively overshadow material choice even if you're only considering the frame.

At the end of the day, either material will work and bikes at a similar price point will tend to have frames of similar quality. Ride 'em and pick one.

The thing about aluminum frames (and I have one that I really love), is that they're more likely to get dented, and the dents will be bigger and perhaps more of a problem, than dents in steel frames. My steel commuter gets locked to a steel bike rack with steel locks - and it has a few small dents to show for it... if it were aluminum, there'd be a lot more.

So for ride quality there are much more important things to look at than the material; but for general toughness in abusive situations - steel has a definite advantage (don't get the thin walled stuff though!)

+2

I've commuted mostly on steel bikes, but also on aluminum bikes over the years, and honestly, big picture, either one works well. All the other aspects of the bike noted above are far more important than the difference between steel and aluminum in the frame and fork. I'm currently riding aluminum, but would have no problem with steel.

Rick / OCRR

Depends , are you going to form an attachment with this bike ,
or is it just a tool to get you from A>B?.

do you care?

Aluminum doesn't rust if you leave your bike outside. A quality steel frame gives you a better ride. Other than that, there's not much of a difference.

This is true. It's also true that a quality aluminum frame gives you a better ride. I don't think it's consistently true that a quality steel frame gives you a better ride than a quality aluminum frame (or vice versa).

Of my 5 bikes, 2 are all steel, 2 are all aluminium, and 1 is aluminum with carbon forks and seat stays. I like them all. I think tires make more of a difference than frame material, TBH.

I have had similar experiences. In the last few years I've ridden 4 different road bikes to work. One was aluminum and 3 were steel. In terms of ride quality amongst all the bikes, the aluminum bike ranked 2nd. The first was steel but I think that has more to do with fact that it was a touring oriented bike with long chain stays than it does with the frame material.

However, there are plenty of people who are convinced that steel gives a better ride so what I would recommend is to test ride a bunch of different bikes paying no attention to frame material and pick the one you like best. If it so happens that the one you like is steel, great. If not, that's OK too.

Thanks for the input. I already spend a lot of time on my road bike but am interested in working a bike more into my weekly schedule after I move to Atlanta this year.


https://www.raleighusa.com/bikes/steel-road/furley-12/
I'd be swapping an apex group In and throwing a rack and fenders on this one.

https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...01&scname=Road
Rack and fenders on this one as well.

The Raleigh is what has my eye, but the tricross is what my favorite lbs carries. I think the tricross would still come out to be more expensive even after upgrading the group on the Raleigh. And, coming from the road bike world, 1900 seems like a lot to pay for a full aluminum bike with apex...But then again both of these bikes with apex would kind of be overkill For my uses I guess.

It's probably important to point out I'd be using this bike for slower group rides with friends as well, when i don't want to pull my race bike out.

Hey there kiloRH,

Tell ya what. Save your money and still have the thrill of a lifetime! Do yourself a favor and checkout the Jamis Satellite Comp.

It is truly an exciting road bike. Don't take my word for it. Test-ride it for yourself!

- Slim

I have used both and it really makes no difference. Most mass production is in aluminium so that is where you find the best value.
How far are you riding.
What is your largest expected load.
What other uses do you have for the bike apart from commuting?

Thanks for the recommendation, but I would just end up replacing the 9 speed Shimano stuff down the road and end up costing myself more money, and man is that the ugliest drop bar bend ever!

I've commuted on steel and aluminum bikes - both did the job just fine.

I don't really think there is a "best for commuting". Commuting generally isn't about long distance (comfort), or speed (weight, aggressive geometry). It doesn't really take a special bike to get you there.

For commuting, the considerations for me would be, how much stuff do you need to haul? How much risk of theft? (Do you want to spend much?). What kind of weather are you planning to ride in? Bikes of all frame materials can address all of those questions. (Except maybe getting a cheap "beater" CF bike)

I would buy a bike for whatever other kind of riding you do and adapt if for commuting, or save your "good" bike and get whatever cheap comes along for commuting. That's my advice, but I cant seem to resist riding my "nice" bike every day though.

That drop bar bend is uniquely beautiful!

- Slim

I'd be tempted to go with the Raleigh for commuting just because it has the rear brake in the right place for commuting. I hate the wheels and the brakes look very cheap, but for the difference in price relative to the TriCross, you could spec it out pretty nice. I wonder if Raleigh sells that as a frameset?

The Civia Bryant and Soma Double Cross come to mind as framesets that might give you what you're looking for if you're willing to do a full build. Your LBS should be able to get either through QBP.

everything else is never equal, commuter bike should be one that if it gets stolen or crashed it won't break the bank replacing it. It could be anything from an old road bike to a 40lb Schwinn. It's what gets you from A to B regularly.

Best Answer!

I have two bike of similar configuration. Trek is old Cro-moly, Raleigh is
aluminum. Big difference is the Trek has 700cX28 and the Raleigh has
700CX35. The Trek still has the better feel. The Trek is about a pound
lighter. Due to the wheels and tires.

Aluminum is not used to make Springs. ..

My commuting rig consists of 2 bikes. One is steel and one is aluminum. The aluminum one is multi-geared w/rack, panniers, full fenders, etc. 2x9. It's a BD bike and is over 3 years old w/17,000+ commuting/utility miles w/one complete overhaul and regular lube/maintenance.

The steel one is a fg conversion of a 80s Fuji Del-Rey. Set up w/a seatpost rack/trunkbag combo. SKS Raceblades. (Just enough coverage to be annoying...) 48x15 gearing.

They both do the job for which they are intended for my needs and require regular maintenance beyond just a few cursory adjustments. My rt commute is 42.2 miles of rolling terrain, so they take more of a pounding than bikes of similar quality covering half the distance per week.

The main thing is they give me alot of flexability if one goes down. In using dual-sided spds they're both set up to use any of several pairs of shoes.

So, in conclusion I guess that I don't find any noticeable difference in the ride quality of either one. They're both loaded to a certain degree even when empty. The steel seems a little more responsive, but that may be due to the fact that it weighs 5-7 lbs less than the aluminum rig when empty. Oh, yeah they're both equipped w/700 wheels.

Umm, yes it is.