I just looked up SPD, sounds terrible, sorry for your troubles but in this context I see where you are going. Would you generally agree with the results of that report? I would as my arthritis would confirm their results. Too bad they did not do Ti as I have found while very similar to a well made steel frame there is a very slight difference I prefer, can't really put my finger on it but it is more of a frequency change or something similar that the difference between a well made carbon or aluminum frame.

I would not be surprised if even the track guys could not detect the lateral difference in track hubs.

It has been bad in many ways and has changed a lot over time. What I get from the report is that certain frequencies were being detected more intensely on the aluminum frame. I don't know that these are the frequencies or vibrations that I found unpleasant. The shock from a polyurethane bump on a treadmill vs the various road surfaces and textures will be different but it does show that the aluminum frame bicycle tested carried a more intense shock or impulse to the accelerometer, at certain frequencies, compared to the other frames tested. I agree with that based on what I have experienced. I really feel its something in the resonance of the frame more than just needing softer tires, the aluminum bicycles I had issues with had 38mm and 49mm wide tires. My steel bikes where I don't have the issues have 25 and 28, and 38mm wide tires. I too have arthritis and some other issues from injuries and surgeries. The aluminum bikes I had were unpleasant and exhausting, no matter what changes I made I could not ride them comfortably. Again, this is just my observations as they apply to myself.

I've never ridden a titanium or carbon fiber bike. They may be great, I don't know.

What you are responding to is not frame material, it is frame design. You can observe that tires of 25, 28, 38mm are different. Frame tubes of 25, 28, 38mm are different too. An old Vitus aluminum frame with a 25mm top tube does not ride like an aluminum frame with 38mm tubes. Most bike frame designs are not designed at all. Marketing and legal have as much to say as the engineers. The production machinery we use because of fashion or mistakes made a decade ago come ahead of good performance. Then reviewers who get paid publish raves about the wonderful new design. Then the readers of those reviews rave on these pages. How the frame works counts for next to nothing.

That may be,. Thanks for the information.

That is a discouraging indictment of the industry. I helped a neighbor with a new to him 3 year old Cannondale CAAD 12. Took a ride and wow what an improvement over the Cannondale I once owned which had little frame dampening to the point of being harsh.

At the top end even Cannondale gives some small attention to these issues. Lower down the line, where everyday riders do need and want comfort, the frames are all massively overbuilt. What you call "point of being harsh" would be what I call unrideable. But lots of customers bought the harsh/unrideable (pick one) bikes and bought them again. So why pay any attention? Marketing department rules. Customers are malleable, there are no standards.

And there hasn't been a bike built since 1983 that was worth riding, much less owning , right,?

I'm not sure why you're surprised that mid-level, cost-point bikes might be less finely engineered than a top-line model. Sticking only within the Cannondale back catalog, you know they made a number of different, distinct models, and that characteristics of the bikes changed through the years? The 3.0/2.8 and the early CAAD-3s were products of the "lighter-stiffer-faster" 1990s. The Black Lightning was essentially a Track bike with a derailleur hanger. At the same time, they also made the highly regarded ST sport-tourer, that was a smooth -riding, long-legged mile-eater, that didn't suffer from the heavy, 'dead' unloaded ride of something like a Surly LHT.

Also, not everyone is looking for the same characteristics in their bike. I'm a pretty heavy guy who's better suited to mashing than spinning. What might be a lively, supple riding bike to you, is a wet noodle under me.

(I regularly ride with some very large guys; except for the two custom ZINNs, they almost all ride XL/2X Cannondales)

Nobody thinks that. There are a lot of very good bikes made all the way through the mid-to-late 90s.

The LHT is a truck. Marginally better than a truck is not a big recommendation.

For very heavy riders what is available is better than it has ever been. For the rest of us, we get to choose from bikes strong enough for 250 and 300 pound riders. Legal insists on it. Strong enough for 300 pound riders with safety margin.

I was unaware that the lighter stiffer faster 90s had ever ended. The alternative is niche custom builders and old bikes. Just like in the 90s.

There might be a third option for perception other than harsh or unrideable by the riders that bought the bikes and bought them again. Something other than "marketing rules" and that they're just malleable sheep without discerning ride standards. That third perception is that the bikes ride just fine and meet the comfort, performance and value needs and criteria of the rider. I had a CAAD 7, for instance, that is often criticized as harsh. I found it to be a fun, lively and comfortable bike after I got the cockpit and fit dialed in and used good tires on it. The same goes for my current steel, aluminum, carbon fiber and titanium bikes. The steel one is the harshest by far, but well within my comfort zone for the type and length of riding I do.

Here is a Santa Cruz being 4210 tested. Watch it flex:


I hope you can see that. That is plenty visible, not only visible to Superman and his X-Ray eyes. And that is a fairly stiff frame, would not make any sense to put a suspension fork on something noodly. That flex affects ride. All frames do this. The flex can be engineered and manipulated. Or you can say "stiffer" and just use massive oversize tube sections.

You can pretend that nothing makes a difference. Go ahead

Loved my all-531 Helyett Speciale track bike when my parents bought it for me in 1964. Loved my early '70s Paramount, Raleigh Pro (the first version, the white '64 Tokyo Olympics model), Atala Pro, Bianchi Specialissima, etc., etc. But I think my favorite bike of all I've owned is my 2005 Specialized Langster road-geometry aluminum track bike.

That bike's (aluminum) fork has 36x20mm straight blades---no taper, same dimensions from crown to dropouts. The frame's top tube is 36mm, the down tube is 40 mm.

Why do I prefer this aluminum bike, which should be all but unrideably stiff, some would say, to all my steel bikes? (i) It's as "comfortable" (whatever that means for a road bike) as any bike I've ever owned. (ii) The wheelbase (38.5cm) is ideal for my preferred handling. (iii). Most importantly, it's the most torsionally stiff bike I've ever ridden.

Until I bought this Langster, I never realized that such a stiff aluminum bike could handle more predictably than even the best steel bikes. That quality has turned out to be addictive. I gradually gave up riding my few remaining steel bikes and have been riding aluminum bikes exclusively for nearly 15 years now.

All the complaints about aluminum bikes in this and similar threads remind me of an anecdote I read in a Guitar Player magazine interview years ago. The guitarist being interviewed had, early in his career, worked in the touring band of a famous veteran blues musician---Robert Lockwood Jr., I'm pretty sure. Lockwood overheard the guitarist complaining about the things he hated about his current guitar---sound, feel, etc. His boss said, "Let me try it." After playing it for a while, he handed it back and said, "Guitar's fine. Must be you."

[QUOTE=Trakhak;22609278"Guitar's fine. Must be you."[/QUOTE]
Could not agree more, I am fortunate to have too many bikes including 3 titaniums and 3 customs built for me in EL, Prestige ultralight and Reynolds 853 and a Vitus 979 which as it has a grub screw is at least a 1985 remains in my daily rotation. However, at 72 There is no risk of bottom bracket flexing.