What difference does the frame make?

Giraffoto

Obviously quite a lot if your bike has rear suspension, but this is about hardtail designs. If you were to take top- and bottom of the range aluminium hardtails from say, Trek, Scott or Specialized; if you then swapped the frames (expensive parts on cheap frame, cheap parts on expensive frame) and took them for a test ride along with unmodified bikes, how much difference do you think the frame would make?

Would a frame from a £2000 bike with parts from a £300 bike feel much better than an unmodified £300 bike?

Would a frame from a £300 bike with parts from a £2000 bike feel much worse than an unmodified £2000 bike?

Would you even notice the difference without weighing them?

Should I even be thinking about aluminium, when steel is so real and carbon is so much better?

nicklouse

lots.

why mot? is it?

mrmonkfinger

Giraffoto wrote:

Should I even be thinking about aluminium, when steel is so real and carbon is so much better?

anyone know where the "not sure if trolling" picture is?

supersonic

Frame feel is very subjective. Some like stiff, some like flexy, and price often has little to do with it. Frames get lighter though, and it is true to say that very light steel is naturally more flexy than heavier stuff.

Giraffoto

mrmonkfinger wrote:

Giraffoto wrote:

Should I even be thinking about aluminium, when steel is so real and carbon is so much better?

anyone know where the "not sure if trolling" picture is?

Not trolling - this last question was meant to be ironic, possibly self-deprecating and a reference to the couple of threads in which people have either claimed that steel is so much better because it's what we always used to do and carbon will always break, to which someone is bound to reply that they'd never have anything other than carbon. Maybe I should have left it out, because the original and very serious query concerns aluminium and is about the difference a frame makes compared to wheels, or forks or groupset etc.

ilovedirt

I can never tell the difference between different materials in terms of flex to be perfectly honest. Or at least I've never tried enough hardtails back to back to tell.

Personally, I think geometry makes all the difference.

leaflite

More expensive frames will have had more thought put into the geometry(usually) which should make them fit and ride much better. They will probably be made of lighter materials and (depending on intended use) may be stiffer and/or more comfortable.

It all depends on the intended use though-a very expensive, light frame will not necessarily ride better than a cheap heavier frame on general terrain if it is too flexy.

paul.skibum

First proper mtb - Merlin Malt 2

Replacement frame (same parts) - Rock Lobster steel frame

Replacement frame (mostly same parts) - Cove Handjob (steel)

The Merlin was fast and snappy, lighter, felt like it put power down better but was less lively and agile on the trail, Rock Lobster was a bit average, less snappy, bit more comfy, still not very lively on the trail, Cove was agile, playful and comfortable to ride, fast handling, but also stable at speed, didnt have the snappy acceleration of the Merlin but otherwise was the fun bike to ride. All three basically had the same kit (as the first two frames were crash damaged and replaced) - Bomber forks, X717 rims on deore hubs, deore gearing, easton bars and seat post.

Frame changed how the ride felt a lot in each iteration.

supersonic

Depends what you mean by 'lively and agile' - though I guess a more upright stance and steep angles help.

ilovedirt

supersonic wrote:

Depends what you mean by 'lively and agile' - though I guess a more upright stance and steep angles help.

More like 'twitchy' and 'scary'!

defride

Once had the opportunity to muck around and try all sorts of bikes.

Different frame materials at the higher end offer quite different rides and it is pretty subjective, some like the whip from Ti and to a lesser degree steel which tend to float across stutter bumps to a degree but don't always feel like they respond instantly. On the other hand alu and carbon are stiff and responsive but can sometimes feel as if they're on a leash when they hit those same bumps and offer a ride that can feel a little leaden. I've not ridden a recent carbon frame, expect things have improved greatly since I last road one. All generalization of course there are tons of different designs out there.

When it comes to components stick £300 worth on a highend frame and it rides crap, mainly down to the wheels. Put basic components on a package inc a good frame and wheels and its generally pretty acceptable. Fork makes a difference of course but again that can be subjective. Loads of people loved their Pace forks... lol. The cheap stuff generally doesn't last well when abused.

Then of course theres the frame design, angles, tube lengths etc, an entry level Kona is going to ride way different from an entry level Trek for instance even if you built them with the same components and frame material.

supersonic

It is the frame design, taking into account the materials properties - I have seen very stiff steel and ti frames, and very bendy carbon and alu opnes.

If ridden blindfold I doubt anybody could tell what the frame was made of. Before you crashed ;-)

cooldad

Or it rains and the carbon melts and the steel rusts away.

YeehaaMcgee

Sometimes the differences between bikes, and frames, are quite subtle, and not particularly noticeable until you're spent considerable time in the saddle, then switched back again.

paul.skibum

supersonic wrote:

Depends what you mean by 'lively and agile' - though I guess a more upright stance and steep angles help.

Well for me the Merlin was a great mile muncher but when things got fun - jumps, berms, downhilly - it wasnt nearly as confidence inspiring - the Rock Lobster was similar angles to the merlin, the cove a little more relaxed and felt fun on the more technical stuff.

supersonic

Ah, I'd call it the opposite way - slack = stable, steep = lively!

ilovedirt

I dunno, a stable bike can still be plenty lively, it's more about length on the back end IMO. Short back end = lively ride. Depends how you ride the bike though really.

paul.skibum

I mean lively as in poppy, keen to jump, rails turns a bit more rather than whooooooaaaaa f*ck rapid steering!

As I say across those three bikes the Cove definitely felt the most fun to ride (adn they all had the same Bomber fork, wheel set and bar width/stem length