jasonyates

I have only ridden steel bikes up to this point. I am thinking of possibly getting a frameset that is aluminum with a carbon fork. What is everyone's opinion of one vs. the other?

-Jason

dexmax

aluminum is stiffer than steel.. You will feel the difference when you test ride aluminum bikes..

The carbon fork dampens shock at the front end.. But you will still feel the pain at the rear.. If you compare the ride factor(comfort), steel is relatively better than aluminum..

But because aluminum has less flex, transmission of power is outstanding.. So it will, theoritically, be faster..

Either way, the carbon fork helps with comfort..

khuon

There are some aluminum designs with carbon stays (either both seatstays and chainstays or usually just seatstays) which will give you some vibration and small shock damping in the rear. You might wish to test ride them as well. Personally, for comfort and ride quality in general, I prefer steel, titanium or carbon fibre but one has to keep in mind that material is often times less important than the design of the frame, the manufacturing processes (especially with CF) involved and the quality of the wheels.

NealH

Some reviews on steel and aluminum bikes to start you off.

https://www.bicycletest.com/members/b...ucts_bikes.asp

mudmouse

I got my first alum bike this year. It has a carbon fork & seatpost. I love it & dont find the ride too rough at all, but I guess it just depends on what you like. I was kind of worried about alum. after reading the different "al vs steel" threads, but I'm very happy with my bike.

I love my mtn bike, but it's just great to be on a road bike again!

kari

roadrage

It totally depends on the aluminum bike w/ carbon fork. Some ride better than others, some I feel are just as comfortable as steel.

hsjb

I tried the Bianchi Giro which is an aluminum main triangle with carbon fork and seat stays. It was very comfortable and light. However, I would say the steel Bianchis were even better. However, they are definitely heavier.

Dirtgrinder

I've got a Bianchi Axis. Easton Ultralite Aluminum with carbon fork. Ride is very smooth compared to my older steel frame. I was a little skeptical because of the aluminum frame but it rides great.

Jeff Enck

This year I bought a Specialized Sequoia with aluminum frame, carbon forks and the Specialized cushioned seat post and it rides better then my steel framed Jamis Quest. I was leary about the seat post and assumed that I would end up removing it but it works well, worth the added weight.

peloton

Steel frames dampen the road vibe more than aluminum because they are heavier. If you want a plush ride, go with a heavy frame; if you want a light frame, go with aluminum and accept the fact that you will feel more of the road. Having said that, despite what the steelisreal retrogrouches might have you think, steel and alu frames of equivalent weight will have pretty equivalent rides... except that the alu frame will have more lateral stiffness and be more efficient.

Ask yourself this: If steel is so great, why are the world's top bike manufacturers, from Trek to Colnago and back to Eddy Merckx abandoning it at the high end? And, if steel gives such a plush ride, why are bike manufacturers like this one offering steel frames with carbon stays to smooth out the ride?

danr

When people spend money on high-end bikes, it is usually for 1 of 2 reasons. Speed, or posing. Steel just doesn't accomodate for either.

In addition, when people visit the bike shop to buy their first high-end bicycle, what is one of the first things they want to do? They want to lift it to see how light it is. Then they take it for a ride. They can't tell the difference between steel and aluminum. All they know is that it is light and they believe it will make them go faster.

As far as these combination frame, I believe that it is an attempt for people to try and get the best of both worlds. They want steel for comfort, but carbon seatstays shaves weight and adds comfort and stiffness on the rear end. Personally, it is way too involved for me.

Peloton, although your passion for aluminum is a little too intense for me, I do agree with you. If you want steel for comfort, then go ahead and get steel. Just accept the fact that it is heavier and slower. However, if you want light, fast aluminum, you need to accept the fact that it is going to be a harsher ride; regardless the reason.

Above all else, lets not forget that training is what really makes you faster.

peloton

Danr:

It's not that I have such a passion for alu, so much as I'm sick of the steel retro-hype. The whole steel vs. alu debate is driven by nothing more than baby-boomer yuppie lifestyle nostalgia. We get these guys into the shop who have just gotten into cycling at 45, and who want to be the heroes of their youth. Merckx and Hinault rode steel, they reason, and they had steel Schwinns when they were kids, and De Rosa and Colnago made their names in steel, so steel must be better. They remember how smooth their Schwinns were, forgetting that a straight-gauge 26-pound steel bike will ride more smoothly than a 17-pound alu bike simply by virtue of the fact that it is heavier and tracks better over the rough. It's sort of like the way the baby boomers fall over each other buying SUVs for the plush ride because they get bounced around a lot in their Toyota Echos.

Steel can be made as stiff and as fast as alu. Columbus UltraFoco is a great example of that. The problem is that, in order to obtain the same properties as alu -- lightness and lateral stiffness -- using thin walled shaped steel tubing, the steel inherits the same ride characteristics as alu, and at a price premium. So you get a steel bike tat rides like alu... at a higher price. Yet, we get customers who would gladly pay the 35-50% just because it's steel.

Don't get me wrong. There is some incredibly bad alu out there. The Giant OCR frames, for example, are designed to shake your bones to dust and knock fillings loose. The Trek Alpha SL and Specialized A1 tubing is really uncomfortably stiff... but once you get above the low-end of the range, the aluminum frames -- Easton UltraLite, Klein/Trek ZR9000, Columbus Altec, Airplane and Starship -- are as good or better than any equivalent-priced steel.

The thing is that they just don't have the retro cachet of steel.

The only real advantage that I see steel having over alu is that it can be re-welded, although some alu tubsets, like Starship, can be re-welded. this advantage is offset, I think, by the fact that steel rusts, and thin walled steel rusts very quickly.

uciflylow

Gosh!

I ride an Alpha SL TREK model and I don't think it beats me up?:confused:

Maby it is because I am a big boy and it has more flex than if you'r light weight?

BTW, I ride 145 psi tires.

danr

Well, for my riding purposes, this defeats the whole purpose of steel. So I'll agree with you there.

It seems like these people are just buying into some of the hype of the cycling industry. In my opinion, there is much more hype out there besides steel v/s aluminum. To be honest, I believe that the cycling industry is very dependent on hype. If it weren't for hype, they wouldn't sell as many bikes which in turn, they wouldn't have as much money to do research and build better bikes.

If I were working in a bike shop and that same individual walked in and wanted that steel bike that rode just like aluminum but cost more, unless it was a friend of mine, I'd just let them waste their money. Don't get me wrong, I'd still be honest with them. I just don't see a reason to get upset when someone is going to buy into some of the cycling hype. In reality, how many of us really need a bike that expensive to begin with? If you look at it that way, then just about all of it is nothing more than hype.

But as I said before, if you want to go faster and longer, then train faster and longer. The bike will make little difference.

danr

Well, to give my 2 cents in on the real topic (sorry if I got off topic there), I think it just depends on what you are going to use it for. A nice aluminum frame with a carbon fork will treat you right. However, I had a flimsy aluminum bike at one time (Fuji). I tend to ride less-than-perfect road conditions (the LBS would cringe when I told them where I was riding). To be honest, I did not feel safe at all on that aluminum bike, and I was only going 25 - 30 downhill. At times, I thought my headtube was going to snap off from some of the bumps. I ride that same road now with my steel rig and I don't even think twice about it. However, the steel bike I ride (Surly Pacer) is a heavier-set steel frameset and it is designed for such riding.

So my opinion is that if you plan on doing some fast riding on good roads, the aluminum with carbon fork should treat you well. But I'd suggest not getting rid of your steel rig right away. You may want it back.

kurt64

I just got to ride an 03 Bianchi Giro...all I can say is WOW!!! That is one nice bike. It is a little pricier than I was looking for, but I am still looking. I originally went to the LBS for the Bianchi Axis, but for about $100 more, I can get the Giro. Granted, the Axis is much tougher, but I have to say that the acceleration and smooth ride of the Giro the winner IMO.

Flaneur

Jason,

I think one or other of these frame materials might, in the right hands, be built up into the bike of your dreams. I suggest you ride as many bikes as your acquaintances and local shops, will allow. What works, and has worked for me, with my riding style, body weight, choice of roads, etc., is neither here nor there.........

Too many of these frame threads become evangelical crusades......

mechBgon

My Fuji Team (Ritchey SuperLogic Prestige steel) definitely rode smoother than my Cannondale full-touring bike, given two sets of wheels using the same rims and tires. The following years' Fuji Team was full Easton custom-drawn and still rode firmer than my steel version (and not much lighter either, about 1/2 pound as I recall). So there's my 2c worth on the steel/aluminum question. I'm not a frame-material Nazi, by the way.

As for carbon forks, the only one I've owned was a Kestrel EMS, and it was very firm. I would never have thought to describe it as shock-damping in the least, not compared to a nice steel fork a la Davidson Signature or such. Maybe they just built it a bit too robust.

TimB

What makes a bike ride the way it does?
What is liveliness?
What is road feel?

You can ask 100 different people these questions and you'll get 50 different answers. But here's my 2p worth.

Steel vs aluminium.

High end steel is cheaper to manufacture than higher end aluminium. FACT!
High end Steel is a much tougher material giving higher fatigue resistance and improved vibrational tolerance than aluminium.
High end steel tubesets can be as light as Aluminium anb be stiffer.

This is the theory. However to translatet theory into practice somebody actually has to go out there and do it!

Fact, Cannondale showed the Italian boutique brand frmae manufacturers that 6061-T6 aluminium can build a stiffer and lighter bike than any comtemporary tubeset. That was almost 30yrs ago.

Fact, Steel tubesets exist that are stronger , as lighter and offer superior ride qualities and fatigue life over aluminium.

So why is Al so popular.
Simple really. AL manufacturers traditoinal made tubes for th aerospace industry. When the downturn in the aerospace industry led toan overs upply in AL these manufacturers had to find other markets for their products and expertise. Cue Cannondale.

Today due to the demand of AL tubesets there are plenty to go around. And relatively cheaply too. However Al i more expensive to process than Steel. It's more expensive to weld too.
So if the Steel tubeset manufacturers can produce their tubesets in Steel in as high a volume as Al, the cost of Steel bikes would come down. So the driver toward al is not based on technical superiority but more so on supply logistics and market perception.

It does not help that most steel bike are produced in low vlume and are usually custom jobs either.

FActs:

a) Either steel or aluminium can give you a bike with comfortable ride qualities, liveliness and light weight.

b) Aluminium is more popular at the moment but the fashion is now swinging toward carbon fibre.

c) certain Al alloys can be rewelded but at a loss of strength and fatigue life of the weld.

d) There is no best material for a bike frame. Each in use today has advantages and disadvantages for a price point and target market.


For racing:
Find a frame that fits, get lighter stiff wheels get light components and be prepared for a bumpy ride. This is how it is. To damp vibration you need material lIght bikes don't have much of that.

For Training or Sport riding:
Find a frame that fits well and fit a heavier, more padded saddle, more compliant wheels (preferable hand laced) nice thick padded bar tape. Gimmicks like Carbon rear stay's don't really add any value in performance. Look at a Cannondale CAAD7 for example...

NB: Correct fit is the most important criteria in getting a comfortable bike. everything else is fashion.

Alum

Castanza

From what I have read, and have not taken the steel ride, and than the al ride yet, I would have to surmise this:
Perhaps there isn't a univeral best,
1. What you can afford is my 1st priority regardless of how the bike rides.
2. How does it fit, and comfort factor (frame)
3. what kind of wheels, and components does it have.

This would be my order of priority. Of course, the reality is, that I will try out a bike out of my price range & love it.

Devster

I like steel, but each of those has its own strong points.

RiPHRaPH

tim b is right on.

if you live near the ocean, steel may rust quicker than inland. aluminum will beat you up if you live in the midwest where snowplows rip up the roads and the jarring is unbearable over longer rides.

if you are not riding mountains, does the slightly heavier (we are talking about a pound or two) ride of steel matter? no.

is steel repairable? yes.

does steel NEED carbon fiber forks, seatposts, seatstays, etc to dampen harsh rides? no.

are you trying to race (crits, etc) or commuting, or tooling around?!

both steel and Al frames act differently at different sizes. a 58cm handles differently than a 52cm.

steel frame with a straight steel fork and mavic kysrium wheels is sweet enough for moderate climbs of the midwest and longer comfort rides and for training.

shokhead

The bike will make little difference?ARE YOU SURE?

peloton

Myth.

Some alu (cheaper alu) will, some won't. Some steel will, some won't.

Walter

The bike WILL make little difference.

Guys nowadays are climbing the French Cols on 16# (or less, see Saeco) bikes in times pretty much approximate to what the peloton climbed them in during the 70s and 80s on bikes that weighed about 20#.

If I get blown out the back of a group riding hi-tech bikes while I'm on my steel framed Colnago or my even more retro friction shifted Basso it's b/c I can't spin my pedals as fast as the group. The reasons I can't do that have to do with my physical conditioning not the fact that their bikes are a lb or 2 or even 3 lighter. In cycling the engine is paramount. Lance or Ullrich still ride like Lance and Ullrich even if Trek and Bianchi decided to switch to "retro" steel frames. Even for a very fit 15olb rider 2lbs is a pretty insignificant percent of the rider/bike package.

When young and reasonably fit I had success on my 27-28lb Motobecane against the then top of the line 21lb racers. The weight difference there is more than anything today.

Buy the bike YOU like unless someone is sponsoring you, then ride what they give you. Probably not since you're here asking advice. I like lugged steel frames so that's what I buy. Though I bought and still have a first generation C'dale in 85 or 86. If you truly like an alum. bike you try then buy it and ride it. Don't worry about the rest.

As an aside. in my experience the "yuppie" bike riders described above buy Litespeeds or USPS replica Treks.