Pros/Cons of frame materials?

differentstrokes87 · September 2012

Just wondering what the ups and downs of the various frame materials are, be it carbon fibre, steel, alloy...

What's the main selling point of each?

Grill · September 2012

This topic is covered weekly. Search...

haf1zur · September 2012

main selling point would be weight i would of thought

haf1zur · September 2012

main selling point would be weight i would of thought

ShutUpLegs · September 2012

haf1zur wrote:

main selling point would be weight i would have thought

Which makes fack all difference

differentstrokes87 · September 2012

Grill wrote:

This topic is covered weekly. Search...

I have tried searching. I'm on my phone and for some reason the search options just isn't loading.

Grill · September 2012

smidsy · September 2012

Comfort, Stiffness, Weight, Geometry, Style etc. etc. etc.

ugo.santalucia · September 2012

The 4 materials are remarkably similar in behaviour, the difference is down to frame geometry and tube size... The only reason why carbon is stiffer is due to wider tubings, which in the case of steel would result in a heavy frame. Aluminium is a compromise in this respect, but these days is only used in cheap frames, hence to be avoided. Titanium has always been niche, no real advantages over steel, just expensive.

All the rest is pretty much commonly accepted nonsense (steel rusts, titanium is forever) and market hype (various stiffer, lighter, better claims)

differentstrokes87 · September 2012

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The 4 materials are remarkably similar in behaviour, the difference is down to frame geometry and tube size... The only reason why carbon is stiffer is due to wider tubings, which in the case of steel would result in a heavy frame. Aluminium is a compromise in this respect, but these days is only used in cheap frames, hence to be avoided. Titanium has always been niche, no real advantages over steel, just expensive.

All the rest is pretty much commonly accepted nonsense (steel rusts, titanium is forever) and market hype (various stiffer, lighter, better claims)

A sensible answer finally, thanks.

NITR8s · September 2012

ugo.santalucia wrote:

The 4 materials are remarkably similar in behaviour, the difference is down to frame geometry and tube size... The only reason why carbon is stiffer is due to wider tubings, which in the case of steel would result in a heavy frame. Aluminium is a compromise in this respect, but these days is only used in cheap frames, hence to be avoided. Titanium has always been niche, no real advantages over steel, just expensive.

All the rest is pretty much commonly accepted nonsense (steel rusts, titanium is forever) and market hype (various stiffer, lighter, better claims)

Aluminium is only used in cheap frames, hence to be avoided? really, I have Pinarello FPUno which has a aluminium frame and the build quality in the frame is ten times better than the cheap entry level carbon frames you get for the same price.

Mikey23 · September 2012

yup, pretty satisfied with my giant defy too ...

ugo.santalucia · September 2012

It's a generalisation... these days carbon has invaded even the low to mid end market, therefore only the bottom end frames are in alloy. It was different ten years ago, when alloy was the high end of the market.
There might be notable exceptions of course, but typically in 2012 alloy frames are cheapos

richh · September 2012

ugo.santalucia wrote:

There might be notable exceptions of course, but typically in 2012 alloy frames are cheapos

But that's point though isn't it, there are notable exception and actually quite a lot of them such that they shouldn't be ignored. Yes people need to be guided to avoid poor quality examples but there are really good alloy bikes out there.

To name just a few:
CAAD10
Bianchi Via Nirone 7
Cervelo S1
Specialized Allez
Pinarello FPuno
Eddie Merckx AMX-3

smidsy · September 2012

I agree that carbon is 'all the rage' and that typically aluminium bikes are at the cheaper end of the market but I can not accept that aluminium frames are to be avoided.

I would much rather have a CAAD 10 than an equivalent priced carbon bike.

Anyway no one is saying that all aluminium bikes are cheapo and neither was anyone saying that all carbon bikes are fabulous.

The point for the OP I think is that you need to decide what you want from a bike and then you can start to look at the options, including frame materials to suit.

ugo.santalucia · September 2012

I knew it was a can of worms...

styxd · September 2012

Generally:

Aluminium - The paupers choice, this is used on cheapo bottom of the range bikes BSO's from Asdas.
Carbon - Super light, super stiff, ideal for racing on. Buy if you're an agressive small bloke.
Steel - Heavy but comfortable, ideal for mincing out 100 miles on. Usually bought by odd, left of centre types.
Titanium - Over priced wonder metal. The perfect frame material if you're an over weight, middle aged man who's run out of things to spend his huge pay packet on.

Decide who you are from the list above and buy accordingly!

Bordersroadie · September 2012

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I knew it was a can of worms...

I knew it was just a troll post. Quite a good troll, but still a troll.

It may be true that alu frames are at the cheapo end these days but it's not true to say that they should be avoided. You're in the trade so you know that very well.

Alu has not suddenly become a poor frame material, just because carbon has become the vogue and the relative marketing positioning of alu vs carbon has changed.

ugo.santalucia · September 2012

Bordersroadie wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I knew it was a can of worms...

I knew it was just a troll post. Quite a good troll, but still a troll.

It may be true that alu frames are at the cheapo end these days but it's not true to say that they should be avoided. You're in the trade so you know that very well.

Alu has not suddenly become a poor frame material, just because carbon has become the vogue and the relative marketing positioning of alu vs carbon has changed.

It's not much the material, but rather the manufacturing processes. When frames are sold for a value equal to 100 quid or so there isn't much in the way of quality control... it's simpler to replace faulty ones, rather than making sure each individual one is of a good enough quality. The vast majority of alloy frames are of Halfords standard, then of course there are still some properly made ones, very few. The fact that nobody repairs them is indicative of the intrinsic low value associated with these... a welding + heat treatment and respray costs a lot more than a brand new one.
In addition, there is a tendency towards fatigue failure associated with alloy frames, certainly more so than the other 3 materials, which make them a non viable option in the case of a high end product

t4tomo · September 2012

richh wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

There might be notable exceptions of course, but typically in 2012 alloy frames are cheapos

But that's point though isn't it, there are notable exception and actually quite a lot of them such that they shouldn't be ignored. Yes people need to be guided to avoid poor quality examples but there are really good alloy bikes out there.

To name just a few:
CAAD10
Bianchi Via Nirone 7
Cervelo S1
Specialized Allez
Pinarello FPuno
Eddie Merckx AMX-3

+1. Ugo you don't half spout some rubbish. Lots of very good Alu frames around and Alu carbon mixes.

The 4 materials are remarkably similar in behaviour,

nope not really, Steel Tit and Carbon are better at absorbing virbrations etc than Alu alloy. For this reason Alu forks are a bit of a no no (and a sign of a cheap bike)

Titanium has always been niche, no real advantages over steel, just expensive

well its also lighter and doesn't corrode and has better damping properties.

I'm surprised no-one has said carbon melts in the sun and disolves in the rain yet.

Bordersroadie · September 2012

I take your point but anecdotally* we don't hear much about fatigue failure of alu frames so I'm not convinced to be honest. As long as we steer away from the very bottom end of the market (ie Halfords' entry level price points) then there are plenty of very good alu frames available.

The other way to look at it is that there has never been a better time to buy an aluminium frame, since their premium positioning has been taken up by carbon frames. In other words, a given manufacturer's alu frame is the same quality as it was when it was (previously) in a premium price position, but the real-terms price is lower than before.

You say alu is a "non viable option in the case of a high end product" but in a previous post you said "It was different ten years ago, when alloy was the high end of the market." If you want to make outrageous and inaccurate statements, at least try to keep your story consistent!

* If alu frame failure was common you can be sure it would be well covered in threads here. Come to think of it, I see more threads on here about carbon frames failing/cracking than any other material.

jordan_217 · September 2012

styxd wrote:

Generally:
Titanium - Over priced wonder metal. The perfect frame material if you're an over weight, middle aged man who's run out of things to spend his huge pay packet on.

Overweight - erm no. In fact down to 79 kgs as of this morning.
Middle aged - erm no, barely in my 30's.
Huge pay packet - I left school at 15, what do you think?!
Ti bike - Yes. Why? Well, when I decided to buy a new bike I wanted to ensure I bought wisely - I tested a good few, with different geometries and frame materials. The Enigma Echo was simply the best to ride and I love riding it. Simple as that. If it was made of aluminium/carbon/steel/dried weetabix I would have still bought it.

Every bike/frame, regardless of material has it's own characteristics, strengths and flaws. The one that feels good to ride and makes you feel good riding it, is the one to go for.

rolf_f · September 2012

NITR8s wrote:

Aluminium is only used in cheap frames, hence to be avoided? really, I have Pinarello FPUno which has a aluminium frame and the build quality in the frame is ten times better than the cheap entry level carbon frames you get for the same price.

Really? How have you quantified that. My Ribble is a 'cheap entry level' carbon frame yet it holds up well against my far from cheap Look. I love my Look but I'm realistic enough to know that the Ribble was vastly better value for money and I don't try to justify my Look on functional grounds. As for the paint finish - the Look certainly wins there but the Ribble is fine really.

Personally, I'd have the entry level carbon frame over an FPUno any day but that's a lot down to me just not finding alloy frames desirable (except maybe the infamous Caad9). Steel or carbon for me.

ugo.santalucia · September 2012

Bordersroadie wrote:

I take your point but anecdotally* we don't hear much about fatigue failure of alu frames so I'm not convinced to be honest. As long as we steer away from the very bottom end of the market (ie Halfords' entry level price points) then there are plenty of very good alu frames available.

The other way to look at it is that there has never been a better time to buy an aluminium frame, since their premium positioning has been taken up by carbon frames. In other words, a given manufacturer's alu frame is the same quality as it was when it was (previously) in a premium price position, but the real-terms price is lower than before.

You say alu is a "non viable option in the case of a high end product" but in a previous post you said "It was different ten years ago, when alloy was the high end of the market." If you want to make outrageous and inaccurate statements, at least try to keep your story consistent!

* If alu frame failure was common you can be sure it would be well covered in threads here. Come to think of it, I see more threads on here about carbon frames failing/cracking than any other material.

The aviation industry is finally moving away from aluminium alloys in favour of composites, not much for the weight saving, but for the shear cost involved in fighting fatigue related cracks in aluminium alloys. It costs way more to service a plane during its life than to buy it in the first place. It is a well known fact that Al suffers fatigue even at relatively low stress values and de facto does not have a fatigue limit in a Stress-N cycles curve. While Carbon frames fail due to impact or due to them being often under engineered to achieve the sub 1 Kg target or to quality control issues, aluminium fails over time due to cyclic stress. There is a significant proportion of frames cracking after 3-5 years, while the issue is pretty much irrelevant for steel and fatigue is not a problem for composites either. Is it a real problem? Probably not, but of course it's not meant to be for the top end of the market, whether that is racing (high stresses involved) or touring (high number of stress cycles).

john1967 · September 2012

ShutUpLegs wrote:

haf1zur wrote:

main selling point would be weight i would have thought

Which makes fack all difference

which is why the cycling industry is obsessed with weight and pro riders wear shoes that are so light they hardley last one stage of a race and allmost every bike review criticises heavey wheels and top hill climbers use bikes with no brakes to save weight.

simon_masterson · September 2012

Using carbon fibre monocoque allows framebuilders to make bikes that are optimally aerodynamic and light.

But the best frame material has to be steel. It is the most things to the most people, it can last for decades, it can compete very favourably with carbon fibre and aluminium, and it can be easily repaired.

Drumlin · September 2012

Horses for courses. It all depends on your requirements, the qualities of the specific grade of material, and how it's put together. I'd start with your requirements - what do you want to use it for, how much you want to spend, how long you want it to last.

silverpigeon · September 2012

Here is a link to Tour Magazines stress testing of different frame materials. Some of you decriers of Aluminium are in for a surprise.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

It was done a long tome ago but the results are still relevant, if not statistically significant.

simon_masterson · September 2012

john1967 wrote:

ShutUpLegs wrote:

haf1zur wrote:

main selling point would be weight i would have thought

Which makes fack all difference

which is why the cycling industry is obsessed with weight and pro riders wear shoes that are so light they hardley last one stage of a race and allmost every bike review criticises heavey wheels and top hill climbers use bikes with no brakes to save weight.

The pro peloton uses whatever gear the manufacturers feel like giving them. Those deep section carbon rims might be aerodynamic, but they're also an excellent advertising opportunity. Bike reviewers are also paid to review things.

But in a race that can be decided on .03 of a second (which probably doesn't have all that much to do with the weight of the bicycle), it matters. To riders who need the greatest psychological advantage possible, it matters. In 'real world' cycling, it effectively doesn't matter at all. If nothing else, there's probably more weight on the largest mass on the bike that could be lost, and that doesn't cost anything, and then there's the fact that most amateurs are not nearly as good as the professionals at producing peak performance reliably and for extended periods.

The entry level bicycle of today is lighter than that of Stephen Roche (and lighter still than that of Eddy Merckx), not to mention equipped with features that he would have killed for. I know I'm not as good as Stephen Roche, so I'm not worried.

Pros/Cons of frame materials?

Comments

Categories