In article <
[email protected]>,
abrown360 <
[email protected]> wrote:
> So I am shopping for a cheap road bike, and I came across a site that
> basically says that Aluminum Compact bike frames suck.
> http://www.nordicgroup.us/bikerec/
Consider this..
Aluminum is used for many bicycle components, including cranks, seat
posts, stems, hubs, rims, and brake calipers. In most cases, this is
not an issue because these components are either not stressed in a way
that would cause fatigue and failure, or because they are so
over-specified that they do not experience sufficient flexing to cause
fatigue. If one of these components does fail, it is an inexpensive
repair, though some of the failures are very dangerous.
My response:
It's only fair to mention this..
Here's the infamous recall of the cranks..
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml97/97149.html
Every manufacturer posts recall for their products probably due to
flawed workmanship during the process of production or assembly of the
product. It doesn't mean a whole squat about whether the material is
was made of is weak to start with and can not withstand the stress
factor.
Just because a recall is issued does not mean that the material used by
the recalled product is at fault. If that is the case, then all
materials mined or cultivated on earth are all defective then. That is
because, many products made by these materials have one time or another
been recalled.
> The site then goes on to recommend the older (pre 2005) Fuji League,
> Bianchi Brava, and a couple of other cheaper Chro-Moly steel framed
> bikes.
>
> I do not want to spend more than 600 bucks on a bike, and I prefer
> downtube shifters. However, I cannot find any Fuji Leagues from before
> this year.
>
> What do you people think about this whole Compact Aluminum business?
> Should I really be worried about it? Why would someone say Aluminum
> sucks if it is what most bikes today are made out of? What is the
> deal???
>
This is a quote that I use from a respectable triathlon site.
Compact geometry refers to the rearward sloping, reduced rear triangle
configuration that became popular a few years ago. It is an attempt to
reduce weight, increase stiffness and, for some companies, simplify
fit. Compact geometry started largely as an idea (or was popularized)
by Giant Bicycles as a design by Mike Burroughs. Some of the concepts
used in mountain bike frame design were translated to the road and
compact geometry was born. Compact Geometry has its advantages: If you
have a super long torso and never get enough stand over height then
compact geometry may work for you. But beware, it isn't for everyone.
It also has drawbacks. It can be too light on the back wheel, which
can be lifted off the ground way too easily during accelerations. The
bike really wasn't any lighter than a standard bike and the long top
tube was nice but the corresponding wheelbase was way too long and the
thing handled like a soggy log. An enormous amount of seatpost
protruding above the top tube made the bike feel like a turd, super
flexy during hard jams on the flats in the monster gears.
Having said that, when this idea is executed "properly", compact
geometry bikes are simply the best for some people.
Only a few companies do this well though. Cervelo, Orbea, Litespeed
and maybe Quintana Roo and possibly others. Many of these refinements
had went on to the latest generation of tri bikes -- tri means
triathlon.
> Are there any low-end steel frame road bikes out there any more? With
> non-compact geometry?
>
It's a classic case of fear mongering -- to justify the case that steel
is still better than anything else arguement.