Magnesium always breaks...stay away from it...

Magnesium is not too bad. If you ever get caught after dark in the cold, you can shave some metal off your frame and use it to start a fire.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

Where is a certain guru, I thought he was currently trying to flog magnesium frames?

__________________
BMC SL01
SRAM Force


thank you crank n' cycles...If you are ever in SW WA, take a trip to Crank N' Cycles.

Wouldn't it be more fair to speak about (insert substance here)alloy frames? As far as I know you can't find a frame solely consisting of only one element out of the periodic chart. Magnesium for instance is very soft in its pure state and would be next to useless for most engineering purposes. Likewise I suspect a pure AL bike wouldn't do too well either, and neither would Scandium.

Heck, even much-touted Titanium doesn't get really useful until mixed up in an alloy containing both aluminum and some other materials.

I'm very happy with the aluminium framed bikes I have. They're all solid, large, straight tubed beasts - 2 Felt F80 frames(I built them up with Ultegra doubles) and a Fausto Coppi.

They're all very stiff for climbing and my attempts at sprinting. I may feel the wheels bending but the frames have no flex at all.

Even with the big chip roads we have here I have no comfort issues(apart from tired arms and saddle sores - common to other bikes too) I have.
My only other bike is a full steel one which is less comfortable only because it has a steel fork also.

Paul

I wonder if now Boonen will ride an alloy frame in the classics now that Quick-Step is riding Specialized?

They have told him to ride a Roubaix, and Bettini a Tarmac.

__________________
BMC SL01
SRAM Force


thank you crank n' cycles...If you are ever in SW WA, take a trip to Crank N' Cycles.

I'm in the 'one of each' camp.

I have a steel Marinoni (which I turned into a cross bike), a aluminum Cervelo tri bike and a Titanium Aquila. The bike I'm saving up for now... yep, carbon (at least partially). Either a Cervelo Carbon Soloist or a Cannondale Six 13.

I think the key is that quality bikes can be made in many different materials. Don't buy a material - buy a quality bike. You're the only one who can decide whether it's worth the price tag.

my 2 cents
Pad

I'm curious as to how do Allu and Titanium compare to each other?. I'm considering a Litespeed (ti) vs a CAAD9 at the moment and have never tried Ti before.

thanks

Right now my titanium (TI) bike is my main road bike - I love it! But that may change.

As to the difference between aluminum (AL) and TI, it depends mostly on the design of the bike (tubes, geometry, etc.) - e.g. AL is often touted for its stiffness and TI for it's comfort (or compliance). A bike's lateral stiffness, vertical compliance and handling characteristics (it's feel) are far more dependent on the design of the bike than on the material. An AL bike can be flexy - a TI bike can be stiff as hell, depending on how they're made.

The things I think you should be aware of/consider when buying a TI bike are:

1) TI is a harder material to work with and therefore harder to manufacture a quality bike out of. So I'd stick with a brand that has a lot of experience with TI (since you said you were considering a Litespeed, I think you're covered there). But my personal opinion is not to buy their entry level (it was the Tuscany) TI bike - I think they used to cut corners on the frame quality of the entry level frame to keep cost down. This may have changed.
2) TI is a much more durable material, it doesn't scratch as easily as other materials, it doesn't corode as easily as steel or aluminum. (My TI bike is bare Titanium, it was painted with team colours but I had it bead blasted to remove the paint and left the bare TI - I think it looks great!) For people that understand that value, IMHO a TI bike has a better resale value than bikes of other materials. It also means you don't have to worry quite as much about it getting wet or dirty!
3) However, TI bikes need to have all the aluminum parts removed (ideally once a year), cleaned and reassembled using a copper based lubricant on the threads - sometimes called 'anti-seize compound' or 'TI prep'. Corosion can occur between the alminum and the TI causing parts to seize in the frame (meaning you'll have a hell of a time getting them off). That might not matter to you if you don't ever plan on replacing or swapping out parts. Any good LBS can do that for you (for around $100) or you can do it yourself!

My advice, both are probably excellent bikes but one is probably better for you. Make sure you test ride them both and pick the one you like best (assuming all other factors like price, components, etc. are equal - and I know, they never are).

Might have been more (or less) of a response than you were looking for but I hope that helps!

Pad

Scandium is really aluminum. Aluminum alloys all contain scandium typically.
It's just a marketing tool to call it scandium.
If power transfer matters, aluminum is right up there with good CF frames, and a good aluminum frame will ride like Titanium for comfort.

Aluminum is having a renaissance now due to hydroforming technology, and due to the fact that some CF frames are cropping up with real reliability issues.

I looked at switching my Cervelo Team Soloist for an R3. The R3 is lighter, and rides slightly better, but not 300% better.

Firstly, it depends on what you're aiming for. Litespeeds are very comfortable and can be light (but not always), but they can lack torsional stiffness of good aluminum frames -this is important for downhill descents and racing. If you heavier, you will feel this more. Ghisallos have been criticized for their low BB stiffness, but this leads to great comfort.

CAAD9s have been receiving rave reviews as among the best frames out there, regardless of material.

Practically, I haven't found this to be an issue, even on a MTB.

Aluminum can be drawn into many shapes impossible with other metals, and some planet X frames and the Cervelo Team are very aero.

Being fairly new to biking it seems we are bombarded with ads and articles about how great carbon frames are and the you "have to get one" mentatlity.

So for a while I was longing for a carbon frame. But reality hits (lack of $$$) and in actuality, my Allez Double is perfect for me. The frame is nice and at the time it was the best bang for the buck I could afford. So I've decided to drop the carbon dreams and upgrade the components on my Allez.

And really, for most people I know that are recreational and fitness riders, there is no real reason to spend the extra $$$ for a few grams of weight.

All I can say is that the bike companies have successfully marketed carbon. to many on this board it seems it is the only way to go... but is it really?

I couldn't agree more with you. For the last few months I've been on the "I've got to get me some carbon" wagon. When I was trying to get funding for it (read: convince wife) she asked "well, what's wrong with your current bike?".

I mumbled for a few seconds and then realized that -for the recreational rider that I am, 150Km/week tops- my Ultegra 10speed , Alloy Giant TCR1 provides amazing value for money and there's NOTHING wrong with it.

You really need to think about your (real) needs around cycling gear. I mean, most of mid to mid-high range bikes are awfully close to Tour de France level, but I reckon 99.9% of the riders are nowhere near needing that kind of stuff.

Why have more than you need?

cheers