Why are some anti carbon and aluminum?

GaryGkn

I pose this question as I do not yet desire anything aluminum or carbon but would like to know the view of others.

Dickie

I don't like the ride ali gives and I think that carbon fibre is still in its infancy development wise. I have an irrational mistrust of carbon and I can't get past it. Pretty to look at, longevity? Who knows. Just my opinion.

meagain

Well....don't often (nor lightly) disagree with Dickie, but I have ridden some alu frames that give ME a very comfy (defined how I know not!) ride. Even if in the case of two very top end mtb h'tails (Fuji Mt Fuji SL and Giant XTC SE1) not really what designed for (altho' I suppose that if an XC racer is not going to be unbearable in RACE conditions then likely to be gentle enough on easy trails!).

And carbon? Well, my TCR was just lovely. Again, I suppose designed for long hours under a pro-racer no point if it beats you up after a gentle leisure ride.

At the risk of "boring", I don't think that the material per se is a deciding factor in "comfort" or otherwise.

Dickie

Dave, I feel I should say the "fault" is with me. Only an idiot would put down some of the modern bikes. Beautifully welded, well made kit that works, Shimano,Campag, SRAM etc.

I think maybe I should try another. I quite like the Kinesis Racelight, it has a carbon fork and it seems really well made/attractive. Then I have the irrantional "what if the fork breaks :shock: ?" moment. I dont think Im ready yet, never say never though.

I had a 2000 model Allez. This is where I discovered I don't like sti levers, don't like the bendy brake lever part of it. Hence my pref for barcons or d/tube levers.

nmcgann

My two main road bikes are ally (1 with a CF back end) with carbon fibre forks - I like them both.

My experience with the CF rear triangle has warned me off a full carbon frame - nothing to do with ride quality/stiffness etc., but the material is incredibly easy to damage.

If I was going to buy another frame it would be titanium.

Neil

Jeff Jones

The only frames I've broken have been steel and aluminium ones. Not broken a carbon one yet. Nor a fork.

As far as bits go, I've broken anything from stupid lightweight carbon seatposts to alloy campag record cranks.

GaryGkn

Any thoughts on 953 tubing and Ti?

meagain

Ti is good! Bare (and I see no point in PAINTING it!) it keeps its appearance very well - no chips, scratches etc. If designed right, can be very comfy. Only the very best is light, however IME.

GaryGkn

It seems that although steel is a traditional material for tubing it is quite hard to better generally. Obviously if you a professional carbon is the route especially as a frame set can be replaced every season.

For a normal rider perhaps Ti and the possibility of a non rusting steel is the future.
Is 953 prone to oxidization?

y tin

GaryGkn wrote:

Is 953 prone to oxidization?

If you mean will it rust, then AFAIK, 953 is stainless steel and has therefore anti-corrosion properties.
I'd be interested to hear from someone who has ridden a 953 bike and an alloy and a carbon one to hear thier views on what its like to ride.

I've just spent all winter on a steel frame and I'm not going to spend another one on one. Compared to alu or carbon I just think steel frames feel "dead". You get out the saddle on a steel frame to kick up a hill and .......nothing. It feels like you're dragging the bike up the hill. Do it on alu one and you feel as if the power you're putting down is getting you somewhere. Maybe that's just me. Maybe I like the stiffness of alu.

My best frame is a cannondale six13, carbon main tubes and alu rear triangle. Excellent. And I've done 100mile stints on this without discomfort. Steel frames are like Brooks saddles - old, heavy and in vogue

GaryGkn

Like you I too would love to hear from somebody that has a 953 frame set. Thanks for sharing your experience and views on the subject they were very interesting to hear. I have no experience with carbon and only limited experience with aluminum (it was a Trek it felt too heavy so I gave it away).

nickwill

I've heard it said that the way a bike is built and designed has more to do with the way that it rides than the material from which its built. Its just as possible to have an over stiff and harsh steel or aluminium bike as it is to have an over flexible and vague handling aluminium or carbon frame.
I'm firmly of the opinion that the fit of the bike is far more important than the material.
I ride a steel frame because it was the best way to get a custom fir within my budget.

Pete Beer

Having riden a Condor Pista aluminium and a veriety of steel framed bikes all I can say is the Condor is long gone and the rest are still here.
I'm not anti Carbon but to me they don't have soul.

bonk man

My Dolan alloy track bike is hideous on the road to be honest, ok for a ten mile tt but any further then it has to be my old Morris lo-pro fixed [501 but none the worse for that] .
The Dolan beats me to death even with a Rolls saddle and Gatorskins.. shame because it does get up to speed quickly.

Steel bikes can feel dead but they don't have to. Unfortunately it might take a while to find a good one and cost a lot of dosh. My rubbish dump Mercian is fast, responsive and reasonably light. While not in the same racing league as my TCR it is far more comfy and of course can take a fixed wheel which it will be doing soon when the Dolan goes

I had a Viscount Aerospace until recently that was my fixed tt bike for a while , a 1970's steel bike that weighed about 17 lbs ...... a bit bendy but ok for time trialling.

Titaniummmmmmmmmmmm ... getting a Van Nic Amazon as soon as I get paid for a Mini Cooper restoration job I have been doing for the last year...

NervexProf

I am pragmatic, albeit with NO experience of Aluminium frames, nor Carbon for that matter.

Carbon frames give me the 'willies' it falls over, shatters..lots of dosh up in shards!

Alu frames...have never been convincing in that with oxidisation and poor jointing they would last the course.

Which leaves me with 'steel' where I stay..only because I prefer something that has been built to last..give or take..a pound or two, with a good set of wheels, and regularly fettled my steeds will be around for a long time yet!

P.S. Must confess to amazement when lifting a Chas Roberts steel/Carbon machine this month with an all up weight of 12 pounds though!

bagpusscp

Carbon = burnt plastic. Aluminium = saucepans. If the break the are scrap. 531 Steel is the real deal.953 jury is still out on this. Heard it may have problems .Tubes to thin . Reynolds may do a limited run of 531 so I have been told by a man who knows .531 is 60 or something years old.

GaryGkn

Golly what about 631?

bonk man

NervexProf wrote:

I am pragmatic, albeit with NO experience of Aluminium frames, nor Carbon for that matter.

Carbon frames give me the 'willies' it falls over, shatters..lots of dosh up in shards!

Alu frames...have never been convincing in that with oxidisation and poor jointing they would last the course.

Which leaves me with 'steel' where I stay..only because I prefer something that has been built to last..give or take..a pound or two, with a good set of wheels, and regularly fettled my steeds will be around for a long time yet!

P.S. Must confess to amazement when lifting a Chas Roberts steel/Carbon machine this month with an all up weight of 12 pounds though!

Carbon and alloy bikes do have this reputation for being easily damaged etc but they are probably no more likely to snap than a steel bike unless you are a 16 stone beast on a svelte lightweight alloy but that applies to steel anyway.
I think the perception of vulnerability is misguided. I have broken steel frames but my ancient Cannondale M1000 [early 90's] has be raced and bashed for years and not cracked up.... yet....
I was always told that carbon frames should be dumped if it so much as gets a small chip but the LBS bloke says he sees carbon mountain bikes with holes in the frames and are still being ridden without catastrophic faliure but maybe the modern ones are better made.

Having said all that my mate broke his alloy OCR last year, the bottom bracket area fell apart , but he is a high mileage monster and has now bought a high quality custom built steel tourer..... bet he breaks that as well,........ in about 30 years

Monty Dog

I have at least one of each, so perhaps can comment. Whilst geometry and can construction can have a bearing - I could tell which was which purely on feel. Like bonk man, I have an aluminium alloy Dolan track bike that I use for TT's - It has absolutely no give and any TT longer than 25 miles is purgatory - I have ridden some 100-milers on it but wouldn't recommend it. I have a couple of classic Italian steel frames - both Gios - and they ride impeccably - far better than some of the awful 531 frames I've had in the past. The earliest, a 1982 Gios Aerodynamic is pretty light too for a 'steelie' - probably because it doesn't have ton of chrome like the later one. I have a ti cross bike - which is incredibly comfortable, but not very stiff. A full-carbon Battaglin which I use for training and road racing - it's a bit too stiff for outr rough roads and my light weight - it bounces and skitters on rough surfaces and it's too easy to 'lift' the back wheel when putting the power down. Finally, I have a 6/4 titanium/carbon Colnago which is a great compromise and has impeccable high speed handling, climbs with no discernible flex and yet can cope with pave and rough roads with aplomb. In my experience, 99% of failed equpment is down to crash damage or poor construction - if it's built well and you don't crash, then it's unlikely to fail. Carbon forks have been around for about 15 years and so modern designs are well proven - the only broken carbon forks I've seen were due to crash damage, whereas I've experienced and seen multiple failures of steel and aluminium

Monty Dog

I have at least one of each, so perhaps can comment. Whilst geometry and can construction can have a bearing - I could tell which was which purely on feel. Like bonk man, I have an aluminium alloy Dolan track bike that I use for TT's - It has absolutely no give and any TT longer than 25 miles is purgatory - I have ridden some 100-milers on it but wouldn't recommend it. I have a couple of classic Italian steel frames - both Gios - and they ride impeccably - far better than some of the awful 531 frames I've had in the past. The earliest, a 1982 Gios Aerodynamic is pretty light too for a 'steelie' - probably because it doesn't have ton of chrome like the later one. I have a ti cross bike - which is incredibly comfortable, but not very stiff. A full-carbon Battaglin which I use for training and road racing - it's a bit too stiff for outr rough roads and my light weight - it bounces and skitters on rough surfaces and it's too easy to 'lift' the back wheel when putting the power down. Finally, I have a 6/4 titanium/carbon Colnago which is a great compromise and has impeccable high speed handling, climbs with no discernible flex and yet can cope with pave and rough roads with aplomb. In my experience, 99% of failed equpment is down to crash damage or poor construction - if it's built well and you don't crash, then it's unlikely to fail. Carbon forks have been around for about 15 years and so modern designs are well proven - the only broken carbon forks I've seen were due to crash damage, whereas I've experienced and seen multiple failures of steel and aluminium

bonk man

Does anyone remember the Viscount Death Forks from the 1970's?
Alloy forks held together on the steerer by a couple of roll pins......gumph..
a recipe for catastrophic face / tarmac intercourse...

bagpusscp

Yer.....yes.A mate still has a pair.

bonk man

Hope he has them in the shed and not on the bike...

andyp

I own, or have owned, bikes made from steel, aluminium, carbon and titanium.

Three of these have been from the same manufacturer, De Rosa, and all have been the same size, 58 cm. Of these two, the steel and the titanium ones, have been superb and I still own them. The aluminium frame was very light but riding it was akin to riding a pneumatic drill as it felt like every ripple in the road was transmitted up the frame and into me. I kept it for a few months but hardly rode it so ended up selling it.

I currently own two carbon fibre frames, a C40 and a Casati Marte. The C40 is a great frame and rides beautifully but alongside the the Marte it pales as the Marte is comfortable to ride all day but has the directness you want in a race frame.

If I was in the market for a new frame then I think I'd go for either carbon fibre or, if the bike was going to get transported a fair bit, then a newer titanium frame. I'm forty in just under a year and have been saving for a new bike - at the moment my preference is for a Nevi.

meagain

"at the moment my preference is for a Nevi."

Seems from the looks a pretty good preference!

Lysander

My next bike will be another Ciocc. I bought a Ciocc Challenger whick is alu in 2002 and have done thousands of miles on it yet it still looks and feels brilliant. I just cant fault them.

SamWise72

nmcgann wrote:

My experience with the CF rear triangle has warned me off a full carbon frame - nothing to do with ride quality/stiffness etc., but the material is incredibly easy to damage.



Neil

This is what puts me off CF. Both have an unpleasant failure mode too, snapping or cracking in circumstances where steel might merely bend.