Would aluminum be okay?

After 14 years of riding my old Centurion Cro-Mo I am finally looking for a new bike... I'm looking in the $1000-1500 range. I will be doing some distance riding (usu. 30-40 miles) with an occasional century thrown in (planning on Tahoe in June), and some training, with hopes of doing a triathalon a few times a year. I don't plan on doing any racing other than the aforementioned occassional triathalon.

I've done several test rides and really like the responsiveness of the Cannondale R1000 (CAAD 7), but I've only been able to ride it around the parking lot or, at best, around the block. I'm a little nervous about this choice after reading all the posts here about the "harsh" ride aluminum frames give. I've also ridden the Scattante CFR, a Lemond bike, and a couple of others, but quite frankly in the parking lot I couldn't tell much of a difference in ride quality (handling - yes, ride - no).

Any thoughts or guidance? I'd hate to do as some people wrote and end up getting rid of the bike after 6 months - I don't have that kind of a budget.

BTW, I'm a female, 5'6, 140 lbs., with legs and torso of about equal length, looking at probably a 50 cm. frame.

Thanks for your help -

Have you thought about any of the aluminum/carbon combo bikes like the Specialized Roubiax, Felt 60, Trek 2100 or others with the carbon seatstays? Quite a few in your price range have this and are supposed to be very comfortable for long rides.

The ubiquitousness of aluminum frames these days means there are plenty to chose from, and though your final choice may feel different than your Centurion, you should be able to find one that your body likes.

There might be truth to the ride quality comparisons regarding aluminum, steel, carbon and ti, but those truths aren't necessarily end-alls and they certainly don't preclude you from enjoying aluminum. After all, most of the offerings from popular companies like Cannondale, Giant, Specialized, Trek, Eddy Merckx, Felt, Fuji, Klein, and even Lemond (this year, at least) are either entirely or predominantly aluminum.

There will likely be an adjustment period, comming off of an old Chro-mo frame like your Centurion -- but if you've found a Cannondale that you're happy on, I wouldn't let the frame material hold you back. Nitromike's suggestion to investigate multi-material frames is a good one too; might ease your mind a bit.

Good luck, and have fun!

__________________
...


i relish complicating the obvious and trivializing the stupendous

One good idea is to go to a Trek dealer because they have an all carbin (5200), a aluminum/carbon (2300 i think) and all aluminum (1000 model?) and test ride them back to back.
You should be able to feel the difference in ride characteristic and quality. Riding around the parking lot with smooth asphalt may not give you the full picture. See if you can go over some slightly rougher surface like uneven cements.
Having said all this, if you were to compare a 50 cm aluminum and a 60 cm aluminum bike, chances are the larger size would feel less harsh.
I have a stiff carbon bike and a Ti bike. Both are at the opposite end of the ride quality spectrum. And believe me, I can tell a huge difference!!! although I like my new carbon bike so much, I ride it all the time even on long trips.
But you really owe it to yourself to go test ride those bikes back to back and keep in mind, you'll be on a much longer trip of 100 miles. stiffness is all relative for all people.

All that means is that there are fewer choices.

Point?

Rudy: Agree a test ride over some bumpy road surfaces is necessary to judge ride qualities. I test rode the Trek 2300 (carbon seat stay) and 5200 over manhole covers and rough roads, and thought they were very "plush" riding...really cushioned out the minor road bumps.

For comparison, got on the 1000, and it felt very harsh by comparison. Guess some of that could be the wheels and tires also, but I did have saleman pump all the tires to 100 psi.

Also test rode the Talon a few days later, and it felt considerably stiffer than the 5200/2300 Treks. My Sano seems alot like the Talon.......very stiff, but very smooth in filtering out the road buzz on course surfaces.

The trek 1000 frame is a piece of junk compared to better aluminum. It's an apples to watermellons comparison.

I would focus on fit. Frame materials do feel a little different, but getting a good fit is more important. Make sure that the bicycles you test ride will handle the largest size tire you may ever want to ride. If you are thinking that a triple is in your near future, now is the time to choose a bicycle with the triple.
Trek and others make biycles that are Woman Specific Design.
WSD may help in the fit category.
Tire selection and tire inflation add or subtract a considerable amount to ride harshness.
I have a friend who is your size and weight that rides aluminum without cycling gloves. Harshness is percieved differently by different riders.
If you want to follow my suggestion of fitting focus, go to the FitStick web site and read through the information there at URL:
http://www.cyclemetrics.com/
Find local shop(s) that will work with you on your selection and provide test rides that will assure that you are going to be happy with your ultimate selection.

__________________
David Ornee, Western Springs, IL USA

Ummmm.... To even be able to tell a difference in frame you'd have to use the same tires with the exact same tire pressure, IMHO. All modern frames are going to be competitive and are doing there best to give a nice combo of comfort and performance. Granted on a long haul you might feel the difference, but to test ride in a parking lot you're just going to be feeling the diffrences in tires, etc. You'd have to actually take one out of a long ride.

Of course that's just what I think. Tires can make a huge difference, just go out and try it with 80lbs then 120lbs...totally different feel to the bike!!

Oh, the post just before mine brought up the same issue..good, i'm not totally nuts, or at least not alone in my nuttiness!

If you wish for a bike that last as long as your Centurion Cro-Mo be wary of aluminum. Al is not nearly as good a structural material as steel, carbon or titanium. What that means is that it doesn't have a good molecular memory and doesn't recover from repeated flexing as well as other materials. You end up with a dead feel after N miles of riding and eventually metal fatigue will disable the frame. What N will be depends on the quality & design of the frame, the weight of the rider & the force applied to the frame by the road conditions X speed.

Good luck.

__________________
Computer Science: A study akin to numerology and astrology, but lacking the precision of the former and the success of the latter."

It's true that you will experience more jarring on your rides w/ an Al frame. W/ Al you learn to anticipate the big jolts and let your knees soak up the bumpiness. Were I you, I'd get the ride that I liked best (even with only a parking lot test). If you liked the R1000, and it's in your price range, get it. Cannondale makes nice road rigs -- I used to own a lower-end Cdale (R300) myself, and I really liked the stiff ride for acceleration/power transfer/climbing purposes.

I switched to an Al Orbea, which I love even more than the Cdale (of course, it's made of better materials and it was 3x as much as the Cdale). BTW, Orbea makes a Dama Race frame out of Al w/ carbon seat/chain stays. And all of the logos are painted on. Check it out: www.orbea-usa.com

One more thing. It's better to buy an awesome frame w/ so-so components than to have awesome components on a lousy frame. You can always upgrade your components when they wear out.

Good luck!

__________________
Don't go making snow cones at your local dog park. You will surely regret it.

Well, thank you everybody very much for your input. I went ahead and ordered the Cannondale today - we'll just see how I like it. Thanks again for the help and happy biking.

Yep. Just wanted to see if I could tell the difference between a $600 bike and a $1750 one...and I could, right away. I only go bike shopping about once a decade, so I don't have much of a frame of reference.

Agree the old steel frames of the 70's last a long time, but that's because they are so heavy, built of thick wall tubing and lugged joints. I've got a Raleigh 531 from 1974 and it's a brick compared to the modern steel tubesets. And it probably would last forever if I could stop the rusting.

Not sure where you're getting your facts here, but if AL were not such a lightweight, strong, and fatigue-resistant structural material, why would it be used so extensively in aircraft? When you start comparing frames of equal weights, AL doesn't look bad at all, IMO.