Steel/Aluminium

[Paul J]

What frame material is best...steel or aluminium?
Seems to me that steel lasts longer. But looking around in bike shops they're very few and far between and very expensive. Aluminium seems to be cheaper and readily available.
The other issue with steel is that due to it's longevity, 10 or 15 years down the track when it comes time to rebuild, modern parts may not fit.

 

[Andyb]

"Paul J" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> What frame material is best...steel or aluminium? Seems to me that steel lasts longer. But looking
> around in bike shops they're very few and far between and very expensive. Aluminium seems to be
> cheaper and readily available.

The choice is very much a religious issue amongst cyclists. It is cheaper to manufacture a light
frame in aluminium so steel is being pushed out at the bottom end of the price range. It is easier
to design a frame with a forgiving ride in steel, but a good aluminium frame design will still give
you a good ride. Longevity should not be an issue with a well-made frame. Consider that our
aeroplanes are mostly aluminium and their lifetime is typically quite long. If you're in the
position of having to choose, ride the bikes and make your choice based on their riding
characteristics and build quality, not the frame material.

Personally, I like steel frames but have recently purchased an aluminium road bike (Lemond Alpe
d'Huez) because it had all the features I wanted, had a very supple ride and the price was right.

Ciao,

AndyB

 

[John Retchford]

"AndyB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Personally, I like steel frames but have recently purchased an aluminium road bike (Lemond Alpe
> d'Huez) because it had all the features I wanted,
had
> a very supple ride and the price was right.
>
What is "supple" about your bicycle and how did you determine this?

John Retchford

 

[Terry Collins]

Paul J wrote:
>
> What frame material is best...steel or aluminium?

What do you want to do with it?

If I was going to tour around the world in out of the way places, then I have steel everything
because it can be "repaired" anywhere.

If this is your first bicycle and you are just riding local, go with the price you like and ignore
the material.

If this is bicycle number X and you want to move bits and pieces, then you might have to buy the
same material as bicycle X-n that you are now upgrading.

--
Terry Collins {}}} email: terryc at woa.com.au www: http://www.woa.com.au Wombat Outdoor
Adventures <Bicycles, Computers, GIS, Printing,
Publishing>

"People without trees are like fish without clean water"

 

[Andyb]

"John Retchford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "AndyB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Personally, I like steel frames but have recently purchased an aluminium road bike (Lemond Alpe
> > d'Huez) because it had all the features I wanted,
> had
> > a very supple ride and the price was right.
> >
> What is "supple" about your bicycle and how did you determine this?

I rode my other bike to the shop (Jamis Aurora, entry-level steel frame tourer) and rode both the
Lemond and a similarly-spec'd Trek model (same manufacturer nowadays, I know) to give me a basis for
comparison. All three were ridden over about 2-3km of the same path. I was also careful to ensure
that the tyre inflation was appropriate (100psi on the two 23c-tyred road bikes, and 85 of my 32c
tourer tyres). The Trek was like riding without tyres compared to the other two: I felt every single
crack in the road. Responsive though. The Lemond was similarly responsive (a little less stiff) but
the frame and fork damped the majority of bumps and small undulations/cracks etc were virtually
unnoticeable. The Jamis was soggy and didn't provide any better ride than the Lemond.

The bike I really wanted to try was the Bianchi Eros but I couldn't get a test ride because it
wasn't held in stock locally and they weren't prepared to order one without a non-refundable
deposit. Bianchi have only recently re-appeared in the Australian market and there aren't many
dealers around. I'm happy with the Lemond anyway.

Ciao,

AndyB

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Paul J wrote:
> >
> > What frame material is best...steel or aluminium?
>
> What do you want to do with it?
>
> If I was going to tour around the world in out of the way places, then I have steel everything
> because it can be "repaired" anywhere.

Definitely agree with this. Friend of mine had a rack breakage in Tibet. The Chinese replacemnet
rack couldn't easily be mounted to his chainstays. He had one hell of a time trying to convince the
BSG, with no Chinese language to share, that it was not a good idea to try to weld the rack to his
aluminium frame!!
>
> If this is your first bicycle and you are just riding local, go with the price you like and ignore
> the material.
>
> If this is bicycle number X and you want to move bits and pieces, then you might have to buy the
> same material as bicycle X-n that you are now upgrading.

How does the frame material prevent you from swapping parts? Most deraileurs, cranks, brakes etc are
standard size mountings. I don't believe material has any significant influence. I could stand
corrected for some bits - maybe Aheadset systems?

Cheers Peter

 

[Kingsley]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:30:53 +1000, Terry Collins wrote:

>> What frame material is best...steel or aluminium?
>
> What do you want to do with it?
>
> If I was going to tour around the world in out of the way places, then I have steel everything
> because it can be "repaired" anywhere.

Amen.

Even arriving in The Netherlands with a snapped-off derailleur hanger it was a 2-3 problem to
re-weld it back onto the frame. If it was steel, it could just about be done anywhere.

That said, I think I would still buy another alu. bike - but ensure it has replacable derailleur
hangers...

-kt

 

[Terry Collins]

Peter Signorini wrote:

> How does the frame material prevent you from swapping parts? Most deraileurs, cranks, brakes etc
> are standard size mountings.

That is why I said might. My limited metallurgy knowledge mumbles something about the optimum
strength/weight diamater of an aluminium tube as being bigger than that of a steel tube. Just vague
memories of older bicycles (10-30 years ago).

You gave the example of headsets. There are probably other stuff around. Probably doesn't affect
most people.

--
Terry Collins {}}} email: terryc at woa.com.au www: http://www.woa.com.au Wombat Outdoor
Adventures <Bicycles, Computers, GIS, Printing,
Publishing>

"People without trees are like fish without clean water"

 

[Jose Rizal]

AndyB:

>
> "John Retchford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "AndyB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Personally, I like steel frames but have recently purchased an aluminium road bike (Lemond
> > > Alpe d'Huez) because it had all the features I wanted,
> > had
> > > a very supple ride and the price was right.
> > >
> > What is "supple" about your bicycle and how did you determine this?
>
> I rode my other bike to the shop (Jamis Aurora, entry-level steel frame tourer) and rode both
> the Lemond and a similarly-spec'd Trek model (same manufacturer nowadays, I know) to give me a
> basis for comparison. All three were ridden over about 2-3km of the same path. I was also
> careful to ensure that the tyre inflation was appropriate (100psi on the two 23c-tyred road
> bikes, and 85 of my 32c tourer tyres). The Trek was like riding without tyres compared to the
> other two: I felt every single crack in the road. Responsive though. The Lemond was similarly
> responsive (a little less stiff) but the frame and fork damped the majority of bumps and small
> undulations/cracks etc were virtually unnoticeable. The Jamis was soggy and didn't provide any
> better ride than the Lemond.

All these have nothing to do with the frames, and more to do with the other components like saddles
and tyres. "Supple" and "soggy" frames are myths. To convince yourself, undertake a big effort to
use the same components (down to the handlebar tape) on both bikes and do a double blind
comparison. Otherwise, use Google to look up posts on rec.bicycles.tech on the topic of frame flex,
and the rbt faq.

 

[David Thomas]

AndyB wrote:
> "Paul J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>What frame material is best...steel or aluminium? Seems to me that steel lasts longer. But looking
>>around in bike shops they're very few and far between and very expensive. Aluminium seems to be
>>cheaper and readily available.
>
>
> The choice is very much a religious issue amongst cyclists. It is cheaper to manufacture a light
> frame in aluminium so steel is being pushed out at the bottom end of the price range. It is easier
> to design a frame with a forgiving ride in steel, but a good aluminium frame design will still
> give you a good ride. Longevity should not be an issue with a well-made frame. Consider that our
> aeroplanes are mostly aluminium and their lifetime is typically quite long.

Actually most of an airplane is replaced every few years
If you're in the position of having to choose, ride
> the bikes and make your choice based on their riding characteristics and build quality, not the
> frame material.

True
>
> Personally, I like steel frames but have recently purchased an aluminium road bike (Lemond Alpe
> d'Huez) because it had all the features I wanted, had a very supple ride and the price was right.

yeah.

I think steel is better but it costs more and its not that much better. It does last longer , but
you may not care.

Dave

 

[Jose Rizal]

David Thomas:

> > The choice is very much a religious issue amongst cyclists. It is cheaper to manufacture a light
> > frame in aluminium so steel is being pushed out at the bottom end of the price range. It is
> > easier to design a frame with a forgiving ride in steel, but a good aluminium frame design will
> > still give you a good ride. Longevity should not be an issue with a well-made frame. Consider
> > that our aeroplanes are mostly aluminium and their lifetime is typically quite long.
>
> Actually most of an airplane is replaced every few years

Actually that's not true for any aircraft. "Most" of an aircraft's structural components last
hundreds of thousands of cycles, translating to decades of use.

 

[David Thomas]

Jose Rizal wrote:
> David Thomas:
>
>
>>>The choice is very much a religious issue amongst cyclists. It is cheaper to manufacture a light
>>>frame in aluminium so steel is being pushed out at the bottom end of the price range. It is
>>>easier to design a frame with a forgiving ride in steel, but a good aluminium frame design will
>>>still give you a good ride. Longevity should not be an issue with a well-made frame. Consider
>>>that our aeroplanes are mostly aluminium and their lifetime is typically quite long.
>>
>>Actually most of an airplane is replaced every few years
>
>
> Actually that's not true for any aircraft. "Most" of an aircraft's structural components last
> hundreds of thousands of cycles, translating to decades of use.

Orright Most of an aircraft is inspected and or replaced every few years according to an extremely
rigorous schedule borne of vast experience as to the working life of the individual components

 

[Jose Rizal]

David Thomas:

> Jose Rizal wrote:
> > David Thomas:
> >>
> >>Actually most of an airplane is replaced every few years
> >
> >
> > Actually that's not true for any aircraft. "Most" of an aircraft's structural components last
> > hundreds of thousands of cycles, translating to decades of use.
>
> Orright Most of an aircraft is inspected and or replaced every few years according to an extremely
> rigorous schedule borne of vast experience as to the working life of the individual components

Eh? Aircraft component lifing is more than just "vast" experience, it's about load analysis,
modelling, and fatigue testing.

 

[David Thomas]

Jose Rizal wrote:
> David Thomas:
>
>
>>Jose Rizal wrote:
>>
>>>David Thomas:
>>>
>>>>Actually most of an airplane is replaced every few years
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually that's not true for any aircraft. "Most" of an aircraft's structural components last
>>>hundreds of thousands of cycles, translating to decades of use.
>>
>>Orright Most of an aircraft is inspected and or replaced every few years according to an extremely
>>rigorous schedule borne of vast experience as to the working life of the individual components
>
>
> Eh? Aircraft component lifing is more than just "vast" experience, it's about load analysis,
> modelling, and fatigue testing.
for fawk sake Vast experience by frigging science in all the above leading to a vast amount of data
in load analysis, modelling; fatigue testing and metallurgy (materials analysis etc) All the data
gathered by science in just on 100 years of flight (and yes earlier ballooning efforts) leading to
this body of knowledge being applied to modern day aircraft flight as a system of inspections and
replacements to keep the particular aircraft airworthy. The above foolishly being shortened to the
simple "vast experience " statement of mine meing so charmingly corrected by young Jose above who
doubtless will find the revised version far too simplistic even now.

Pedantic enuff for the rest of you I should think.

Dave

 

[Jose Rizal]

David Thomas:

> Jose Rizal wrote:
> > David Thomas:
> >
> >
> >>Jose Rizal wrote:
> >>
> >>>David Thomas:
> >>>
> >>>>Actually most of an airplane is replaced every few years
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually that's not true for any aircraft. "Most" of an aircraft's structural components last
> >>>hundreds of thousands of cycles, translating to decades of use.
> >>
> >>Orright Most of an aircraft is inspected and or replaced every few years according to an
> >>extremely rigorous schedule borne of vast experience as to the working life of the individual
> >>components
> >
> >
> > Eh? Aircraft component lifing is more than just "vast" experience, it's about load analysis,
> > modelling, and fatigue testing.

> for fawk sake Vast experience by frigging science in all the above leading to a vast amount of
> data in load analysis, modelling; fatigue testing and metallurgy (materials analysis etc) All the
> data gathered by science in just on 100 years of flight (and yes earlier ballooning efforts)
> leading to this body of knowledge being applied to modern day aircraft flight as a system of
> inspections and replacements to keep the particular aircraft airworthy. The above foolishly being
> shortened to the simple "vast experience " statement of mine meing so charmingly corrected by
> young Jose above who doubtless will find the revised version far too simplistic even now.
>

It's good to see that with a bit of prompting you went from "most of an airplane is replaced every
few years" to "extremely rigorous schedule" and "vast experience" to "frigging science", doing a
turn-around and finally acknowledging that your original statement is not true.

> Pedantic enuff for the rest of you I should think.

Nothing to do with pedantry, everything to do with accuracy.

> Dave

 

[Dave]

Jose Rizal wrote:
> David Thomas:
>
>
>>Jose Rizal wrote:
>>
>>>David Thomas:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jose Rizal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>David Thomas:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually most of an airplane is replaced every few years
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually that's not true for any aircraft. "Most" of an aircraft's structural components last
>>>>>hundreds of thousands of cycles, translating to decades of use.
>>>>
>>>>Orright Most of an aircraft is inspected and or replaced every few years according to an
>>>>extremely rigorous schedule borne of vast experience as to the working life of the individual
>>>>components
>>>
>>>
>>>Eh? Aircraft component lifing is more than just "vast" experience, it's about load analysis,
>>>modelling, and fatigue testing.
>
>
>>for fawk sake Vast experience by frigging science in all the above leading to a vast amount of
>>data in load analysis, modelling; fatigue testing and metallurgy (materials analysis etc) All the
>>data gathered by science in just on 100 years of flight (and yes earlier ballooning efforts)
>>leading to this body of knowledge being applied to modern day aircraft flight as a system of
>>inspections and replacements to keep the particular aircraft airworthy. The above foolishly being
>>shortened to the simple "vast experience " statement of mine meing so charmingly corrected by
>>young Jose above who doubtless will find the revised version far too simplistic even now.
>>
>
>
> It's good to see that with a bit of prompting you went from "most of an airplane is replaced every
> few years" to "extremely rigorous schedule" and "vast experience" to "frigging science", doing a
> turn-around and finally acknowledging that your original statement is not true.
>
>
>>Pedantic enuff for the rest of you I should think.
>
>
> Nothing to do with pedantry, everything to do with accuracy.
>
>
>>Dave
>>
>
>

you ****

 

[Jose Rizal]

dave:

There is an apostrophe missing between the k and the s.

> you ****

Upper cases are supposed to be at the beginning of sentences, and full stops at the ends. There are
courses available for basic writing skills: I suggest you enroll in one.

 

[John Staines]

I see your still being a prize tool Jose. Do you go out of your way to upset people or is it just a
natural talent you have?

Why don't you just try and play nice for once?

Bring back Super Mario I say! )

Best wishes

John

Jose Rizal wrote:
>
> dave:
>

>
> There is an apostrophe missing between the k and the s.
>
> > you ****
>
> Upper cases are supposed to be at the beginning of sentences, and full stops at the ends. There
> are courses available for basic writing skills: I suggest you enroll in one.

 

[Jose Rizal]

John Staines:

> I see your still being a prize tool Jose. Do you go out of your way to upset people or is it just
> a natural talent you have?

Very original. But that's "you're", not "your". For someone who touts a university address, one has
to ask whether the youth of Adelaide have any chance at all.

Perhaps being in the same class of posters as Mario and Dave, you take it upon yourself to be upset
by posts which have nothing to do with you. But on the other hand, if you're also one who
transplants a thread from one newsgroup to another just so you can reply with rubbish, then I
understand your identification with Dave.

> Bring back Super Mario I say! )

Why, this is such a surprising statement from you...

> Best wishes
>
> John

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 13 May 2003 20:33:32 GMT Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:
>John Staines:
>
>> I see your still being a prize tool Jose. Do you go out of your way to upset people or is it just
>> a natural talent you have?
>
>Very original. But that's "you're", not "your". For someone who touts a university address, one has
>to ask whether the youth of Adelaide have any chance at all.
>

Good thing you're not teaching!

"you're" is a contraction of "you are". "Go out of you are way" is not really what he was
saying, is it.

Note - grammar flames are usually more dangerous to the flamer than the target.

Zebee
- inserting compulsory missspelling