Which is the best frame material for a commuter?

secretsam

So, what would you go for? Guess my choice from the poll options

whome

judging by your list and a vague memory of your recent post - steel.

However, isn't the answer going to depend on the sort of commute you have?

Surf-Matt

have two steel framed bikes and two alu framed ones so most angles covered

2wheelzgood

I had a go on a steel ss at the weekend. I was amazed how smooth. Yet it had a carbon fork and seatpost so how knows how much difference the frame makes.

My aluminium bike has fatter tyres (not that much actually) and alu everything... it was way harsher.

victor ludorum

Less alliterative and pithy, but how about:

1) We're stuck at the lights,so let me tell you about the time I was riding down to a Real Ale Festival just outside Chalfont St Giles, oh the lights have changed and you've gone, and my bike seems to have rusted and collapsed into a small heap, steel

2) Affordable, lightweight, stiff-and-responsive-and-the-ride-comfort-is-fine-if-you-use-shock- absorbing-components-or-alternatively-just-man-up-a-little, aluminium.

3) Wrap it in cotton-wool (not because its fragile, but because if you've spent that much money on it you don't want to risk chipping the finish on something so banal as a Sheffield stand, carbon.

4) The envy of the bike stands until someone steals it, titanium.

5) Oh God, why do I do this to myself? It weighs a bleedin' tonne and even with the front fork locked there's still enough shock absorbtion in the frame to render my efforts useless, crap here comes someone on a road bike - I'll hold my breath and pretend this is dead easy. Why am I riding this medieval instrument of torture which is plainly unsuited to this surface, full-sus MTB?

2wheelzgood

funny.. but useful.
Alu with carbon bits then, aye?

dazzawazza

Slightly OT, but I rode a full-sus Decathlon (envy of all Chavs) for a year and a half when I first started cycle commuting. At the time I had no idea and rode it to the ground. After absolutely no maintenance and only 3 gear choices it finally became un-rideable when the bottom bracket collapsed.
Having no idea how to fix it I took it to the bike shop and finally decided to get a new bike rather than fix it. I ended up buying a Giant Escape ridged MTB, which I still use today for most commutes. Having no idea at the time the frame is too big for me and the ride is a bit harsh with an aluminium fork, but the bike has been a fast and versatile commuter.
I owe a lot to that decathlon, because if I didn’t own it at the time I would have never made that first commute, which has introduced me to a great sport. Even when I was suffering the poor performance I had become passionate about cycling. Crap bikes can play their part.
I can’t comment on steel, full carbon or titanium because I’ve never ridden them, but aluminium has always been completely ok for me for commuting.

dondare

I don't regard commuting as either a race or a TT and my steel bike, which lives outside all year round is still going strong after 25 years.
You have to throw those Coke-can bikes away after a couple of years, don't you?

Surf-Matt

dondare wrote:

I don't regard commuting as either a race or a TT and my steel bike, which lives outside all year round is still going strong after 25 years.
You have to throw those Coke-can bikes away after a couple of years, don't you?

Not if they are decent aluminium.

Greg T

Surely the best frame for an urban commuter is the one that makes you look best at the lights?

Sure ride quality, handling, maintenance etc is impportant but the absolute must have is that chill factor when bunched up and checking out your opposition.

I'd say that top of the heap are 1970s - late 80s frames with immaculate and very dated paint schemes with brand new bits and pieces, cow horn bars etc etc etc. Running gear is surgically clean and the pilot imperious. Steel. Steely.

New Gucci frames with cool kit are obvioulsy amazing pieces of engineering but are sterile.

Bottom of the heap is so congested it is impossible to define "worst"

2wheelzgood

Greg you used to cool. now you're a tart! I'm regretting telling you about singlies!

Greg T

2wheelzgood wrote:

Greg you used to cool. now you're a tart! I'm regretting telling you about singlies!

I'm regretting buying one - unless I stiffen my gearing soon I fear my quads are going to waste away and people will think I'm a recovering chemo patient.

I will say that the steel framed Paddy wagon does provide a smoother ride than the alu and carbon Lemond...

It could of course be that it's moving a lot slower...........

I think the best bike is one that you ride. If it's too much like hard work you won't do it day in day out.

2wheelzgood

Hm yeah going OT, the Paddy wagon appears to have a bcd of 110 limiting your availability of rings. 48 gives you almost 80 gearinches. plenty I should have thought for a decent pace.
Mind, you can probably spool up an 82 so if you can get hold of a 50t...you will be scalping again.
It might be worthwhile looking for a new set of cranks with a more common track or road bolt sizing 130/135mm... I'm no expert though but had trouble getting much for my 4 bolt shimanos hence the 14t rear.

The deore xt cranks (even though I had to replace the bb) I got used from singletrackworld were a steal. well alu really.. see what I did there! back on topic!
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=28749 not in stock but try it elsewhere?

48t not cheap http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... delID=4323
50t http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/Cycle/7/FSA_1 ... 360031671/
titanium 48/50 http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/Cycle/7/FSA_1 ... 360031666/
somethings to think about... if you got the biek for cheap an extra £30 on the ideal gearing is money well spent imho.. just make sure you are ok with 50-52 GI for when you hit the wind tunnel


anyway alu with carbon is more jarring than a full steel bike.. interesting..

How prone is a modern steel say reynolds 520 to rusting if ridden most nice days and some rainy ones? Probably not in winter though as I'd keep my hybrid monster.

victor ludorum

2wheelzgood wrote:

anyway alu with carbon is more jarring than a full steel bike.. interesting..

Definitely. Aluminium is more jarring, even with carbon components. To add to my misery, my commuter has Campag vento wheels, which are really rather unforgiving. But I have always found the steel frames I've ridden just a little bit sluggish in comparison. (Maybe I am showing my lack of age, aluminium is what bikes were made of in my formative years.) But you can avoid most of the discomfort by keeping loose and relaxed while you ride.

Techno fixes might include:
A carbon front fork/rear triangle takes a lot of the worst of the road vibration out.

A carbon seat post does a lot to diminish battered bum syndrome, as does padding in shorts.

I have a carbon stem/handlebar combination which works well enough, but it doesn't seem that different to the Alu handlebars I had before. Decent mitts and some comfortable bar tape are sufficient (spesh do those 'phat bar' pads as well if you want to add unnecessary weight and wallow in sybaritic comfort...).

The only parts of me that seem to get battered by severe road vibration are the soles of my feet while I'm clipped in, but I tend to wear 'proper' stiff lasted road shoes.

Surf-Matt

Aluminium as a material is actually softer than steel but more of it is needed as it's not as strong. But steel is heavier.

I don't trust carbon frames yet (for MTBs/commutes), as impact resistance is poor and failure is sudden and catastrophic, titanium is a bit OTT but the ideal frame material if you have a few quid.

Any decent steel frame shoud remain rust free for years and years (my 1997 steel Stumpy is still fine) - only areas to watch out for are where the frame is in contact with a different metal or grade of steel - e.g. bottle mounts, mech mounts, etc.

Aluminium needs watching - stress cracking and fatigue can occur after years of heavy use but it's very unlikely to happen in less than 5 years of normalish wear and tear.

Bit of a shame metal matrix composites fell by the wayside - they showed huge potential.
Spheroidal carbon steels still have some mileage but it's still hard to beat good old Prestige or Reynolds high grade tubes.

marcba

Without price consideration, I'd say titanium (lasting, strong and comfortable, but expensive).
To be reasonnable, I choose steel (not a harsh top level steel, but a multi-purpose mid-level steel).

biondino

Do any of you even care a little bit about going quickly?

2wheelzgood

But the steel genesis I tried was almost as light as the langster and it was urging me to crank up the solo 70 inch gear. Which is did very quickly. Lovely.
Granted a Steamoller is heavier and I'm talking about bikes without the excess (unnecessary) weight from multiple chainrings, sprockets and levers!

Steal can be very thin due to it being so strong so as long as it's good quality (wikipedia says most of the alloys are about the same strength these days) and the accessories are well thought out, I reckon a modern steel bike would weigh little more than alu,aluminium.

Plus I hear and read that they feel more "lively"..

victor ludorum

biondino wrote:

Do any of you even care a little bit about going quickly?

Yes, of course, but unless you work halfway up the Col du Galibier, the difference in performance during the average commute is going to be negligible. When I commute, I carry notes, a pda, laptop and a partial change of clothes in a backpack. The extra weight, alteration of my centre of gravity and loss of aerodynamicity rather counteract the advantage of having a 'super fast' frame. Besides, the speed of a bike depends on a lot more than the material the frame is made from.

On that basis, a stiff, relatively lightweight and relatively inexpensive frame made from aluminium is preferable to the greater pliability (and generally, weight) of steel, even if steel is more durable (rust permitting...)

Carbon and titanium make for great bikes, and 'fast' frames (your results may vary). But they are generally much more expensive and therefore more desirable to thieves and represent a greater financial loss in case of accidental damage.

Surf-Matt

I was anti aluminium for a long time but now actually prefer the tight, rigid feel as long as the bike has a decent suspension forks.

It's light, it won't corrode, it forms more easily into interesting shapes and can be hyrdroformed.

But good steel is still good.

Wooliferkins

2wheelzgood wrote:

Hm yeah going OT, the Paddy wagon appears to have a bcd of 110 limiting your availability of rings. 48 gives you almost 80 gearinches. plenty I should have thought for a decent pace.
Mind, you can probably spool up an 82 so if you can get hold of a 50t...you will be scalping again.

TA do up to 61T in 110BCD, had a young lad drive down to us from London to buy one, I really want to see what single chainset he's put it on he's not got the thighs for a trackie. I did point him in the direction of Herne Hill if he was insisting on riding rings this big.

Greg T

Wooliferkins wrote:

TA do up to 61T in 110BCD, had a young lad drive down to us from London to buy one, I really want to see what single chainset he's put it on he's not got the thighs for a trackie. I did point him in the direction of Herne Hill if he was insisting on riding rings this big.

Without wishing to drag this cool thread off track.....

61 up front!

If I had that I'd be pushing out 102 gear inches with a 16 rear cog.

I've no idea what that means but it's in three figures and sounds massive.

I've looked gear inches up and I'm still non the wiser - I think a big number means stiffer gearing - that level of detail is fine for me......

Back on thread....

Is tyre choice a bigger factor than frame?

I've put Schwalbe marathon plus on the Paddy 25mm and a bit different from the gatorskins I use onthe orad bike. Hard to know where the tyre effect stops and the frame starts.

tiny_pens

dondare wrote:

I don't regard commuting as either a race or a TT and my steel bike, which lives outside all year round is still going strong after 25 years.
You have to throw those Coke-can bikes away after a couple of years, don't you?

Unfortunately not. I live in a city so every couple of years of so the bike gets stolen

dondare

biondino wrote:

Do any of you even care a little bit about going quickly?

I go fast enough, Reynolds 531c double-butted has a good racing pedegree.
It's my sturdy wheels and 100% PUNCTURE PROOF tyres that take the edge off my speed. I want my bike to get me there, get me back, do the same tomorrow and so on and if I get overtaken by someone on a lighter bike I'm man enough to live with the shame.

Surf-Matt

I'd say ALMOST puncture proof...

Review from Cycling Plus

Thanks to its thick layer of springy sub-tread rubber - called SmartGuard -the Marathon Plus is virtually immune to through-the-tread punctures...even drawing pins won't penetrate. Apart from the slight speed loss, the only real negative is the dificulty in fitting them: I needed a helper and a pair of Pedro's Milk Levers. Still, they're so unlikely to puncture that this isn't a job you'll do very often.
In conclusion...

Almost impregnable. Heavy and hard to fit, but faster than you'd think.
Rating: 8/10

531 is fine but rather old technology. Makes my Tange Prestige tubing on my 97 Stumpy look quite modern!

biondino

Well, fair enough, you all have very good points, but the sheer acceleration and speed of my carbon number make commuting way more fun than my previous aluminium roadie.

Greg T

I suppose "best frame material" has a number of criteria

Speed
Comfort
Cost
Maint
Cool
Invisibility
Fun

etc etc.

If you're looking for speed above all else then carbon's your man.

I think I'd have most fun on this



I want that bike more than anything else inthe world..

Actually a couple of strap on external lungs to help push that big back wheel might help as well......

Tobiwan

I went for aluminium, assuming that's with carbon forks and seat post. Stiff, light and affordable without being toooooo bumpy.

Surf-Matt

biondino wrote:

Well, fair enough, you all have very good points, but the sheer acceleration and speed of my carbon number make commuting way more fun than my previous aluminium roadie.

Until you crash it - then you'll have to bin it

andrewc3142

Do any of you even care a little bit about going quickly?

Yup, and with my budget of £1k (OK it topped that ...) went for steel. I've not ridden many carbon bikes but from that admittedly limited experience I'm not sure it's a huge difference for what I do most, ie 55m round commute into central London plus the occasional weekend ride. If I was into/good enough/had time for racing and so on I may have chosen differently.

Greg T

andrewc3142 wrote:

55m round commute into central London

I hope that's meters and not miles...........

Jaysus

Sir your testicle is ready for fitting anytime you are