Ride quality: Aluminum vs steel

Hello,

I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems
that when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride
quality and when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an
aluminum one.

Can anyone help clear this up for me? How did steel and aluminum get
the reputations they have? Is it possible that aluminum can be as nice
to ride as steel but often isn't? Does the price range affect it? Can
you suggest some good aluuminum commuter bikes (maybe road bike or
cyclocross with good tire clearance and is rack and fender compliant)
for $1000 or less with the kind of ride quality steel is famous for?

Thanks.

I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems
that when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride
quality and when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an
aluminum one.

You can build a great-riding bike out of either material (steel or
aluminum), but... steel is no longer found on el-cheapo bikes, so it's more
likely that you can find a cheap clunker made of aluminum these days than
steel. Strange but true.

Ride quality is a function of many things, including tire quality (severely
underestimated!), frame geometry, the tube's wall thicknesses & diameters,
and the use of carbon fiber in forks & chainstays (which many will debate
here, but there's certainly a difference I can tell when I ride virtually
identical bikes built either way).

Ride quality is also a function of how well the bike fits you. If you ride
a poor-fitting steel frame vs a properly-fit aluminum one, the aluminum bike
is going to ride dramatically better. And vice-versa.

Nevertheless, there are significant differences in the "feel" of aluminum,
steel & carbon frames. Much of this is derived from auditory cues; the
different materials sound very different when you ride over bumps etc. The
way our minds are wired, I believe we often interpret this to believe that
one is more comfortable or forgiving or smoother or more-dead than another
one. There is room for personal preference, but I don't think that
preference is often based in the reality of one bike being more comfortable
than another (with the exception that I truly feel carbon has amazing
abilities to dampen vibration).

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

"Chris Hansen" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems
that when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride
quality and when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an
aluminum one.

Can anyone help clear this up for me? How did steel and aluminum get
the reputations they have? Is it possible that aluminum can be as nice
to ride as steel but often isn't? Does the price range affect it? Can
you suggest some good aluuminum commuter bikes (maybe road bike or
cyclocross with good tire clearance and is rack and fender compliant)
for $1000 or less with the kind of ride quality steel is famous for?

Thanks.

Chris Hansen wrote:

Hello,

I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems
that when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride
quality and when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an
aluminum one.

Can anyone help clear this up for me?

See http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

How did steel and aluminum get the reputations they have?

Steel bike frames have been around since the 1880s. For most of that
time, steel was the only reasonable choice. Any "reputation" was
attached to different brands and qualities of steel tubing - and
equipment snobs being what they are, a certain amount of that was nonsense.

In the 1970s or thereabouts, aluminum frames appeared, along with a
titanium frame or two. Anyone could tell after 1/4 mile that an
aluminum frame, while light, was too limp to ride well. I remember
sprinting on an Alan aluminum frame and seeing the chainrings scrape the
left, then right, then left side of the derailleur. Tremendous flex.
And very easy to explain: Aluminum's modulus of elasticity is about 1/3
that of steel, so if the tube dimensions are similar to steel, it's
going to deflect about three times as much.

Then somewhere around the late '70s, Gary Klein built an aluminum frame
with oversized tubes, to compensate. Radical idea. Quite light, and
quite stiff. In the early '80s, IIRC, Cannondale began mass producing
similar frames. They were a bit odd looking at the time, but when you
stomped the pedals, they accelerated in a very gratifying way. Very
little flex.

It must have been around that time that some hack writing for Buycycling
magazine said "But it's harsh." Hey, they've got to say _something_
about each bike they test! And one of the rules is, say something
positive, and say just a little something negative, to "prove" you're
impartial. But it just won't do to admit the latest gimmick makes no
difference at all!

Of course, every "real" cyclist immediately memorizes whatever
Buycycling says. Pretty soon, standing around examining equipment
before the Saturday morning hammer-fest, everyone repeated the litany
until the whole world "knew" that aluminum was stiff and harsh. If you
asked one of those guys "But what about that noodly Alan aluminum
frame?", they'd probably turn to their buddy and say "Um - so, how do
you like that saddle? Man, I bet those titanium staples in the
underside really smooth out the ride!"

So there's your reputation.


... the kind of ride quality steel is famous for?

?? what kind is that?

Personally, I think the great majority of "ride quality" statements are,
at best, misinformed or misjudged.

You can feel torsional stiffness in the bottom bracket. You can feel it
if a touring frame of insufficient stiffness starts to shimmy under
the influence of heavy packs. You can feel handling changes caused by
different frame geometries - rake, trail, wheelbase, etc.

But the nebulous "ride quality" that's supposed to somehow manifest
itself through the squishing tires, the flexing spokes, the bending
seatpost, the flexing, squishing saddle? The one caused by
sub-microscopic deflections of a very rigid frame triangle? I don't
believe it exists.

I always hope somone will take a bunch of bikes, identical except for
frame material, and let a bunch of riders test them. But have the frame
tubes wrapped in cardboard. I'd love to see if anyone can really tell
the difference.


--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

"Chris Hansen" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems
that when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride
quality and when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an
aluminum one.

Can anyone help clear this up for me? How did steel and aluminum get
the reputations they have?

Magazine writers. When they first came out, aluminum frames were supposed to
be too soft/flexible, it was only after oversize tubes became common that the
"harsh ride" fable appeared.

Is it possible that aluminum can be as nice
to ride as steel but often isn't?

I can't feel (hear, taste or smell) any difference. It's pretty easy to
scientifically prove that there is no difference to feel.

Does the price range affect it?

No. Price range gets you light weight and nicer finish.

Can
you suggest some good aluuminum commuter bikes (maybe road bike or
cyclocross with good tire clearance and is rack and fender compliant)
for $1000 or less with the kind of ride quality steel is famous for?

You might look at touring bikes, they're a little harder to find, but have
what you're looking for. Fuji, Cannondale, Trek, come to mind. I have a
Cannondale (T-1000) that's very nice for all day riding, very light, and has
plenty of room for tires, fenders and racks.

"Peter Cole" wrote:

"Chris Hansen" wrote in message
. com...
Hello,

I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems
that when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride
quality and when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an
aluminum one.

Can anyone help clear this up for me? How did steel and aluminum get
the reputations they have?

Magazine writers. When they first came out, aluminum frames were supposed to
be too soft/flexible, it was only after oversize tubes became common that the
"harsh ride" fable appeared.

Funny though, even after the big-tube craze hit, many magazine
"experts" were still "feeling" the "soft ride" in those bikes. It
took a while for them to read opinions to the contrary so their butt
would recalibrate, apparently.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Chris Hansen wrote:

Can
you suggest some good aluuminum commuter bikes (maybe road bike or
cyclocross with good tire clearance and is rack and fender compliant)
for $1000 or less with the kind of ride quality steel is famous for?

IMO, the best aluminum touring bike is (was) the Klein Navigator.
Strong, stiff, reasonably light, with a nice geometry. They're a
little hard to find these days, though. Chain Reaction has a
frameset on sale for $350:
http://www.chainreaction.com/klein.htm

This store has a 60 cm frameset for $499:
http://www.leucadiabikes.com/Specials.html

Or you could consider the Trek 540, which is very similar to the
Navigator (Trek bought Klein in or around 1999):
http://www.paloaltobicycles.com/product_specials.html

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Chris Hansen wrote:
Hello,
I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems that
when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride quality and
when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an aluminum one.
Can anyone help clear this up for me? How did steel and aluminum get the
reputations they have? Is it possible that aluminum can be as nice to
ride as steel but often isn't? Does the price range affect it? Can you
suggest some good aluuminum commuter bikes (maybe road bike or
cyclocross with good tire clearance and is rack and fender compliant)
for $1000 or less with the kind of ride quality steel is famous for?
Thanks.


As far as commuter bikes go, there is a valid reason to look at steel
aluminum bikes will dent much easier than steel, so if you're alway
bumping the frame with parking meters, bike racks, and U-locks, stee
will hold up better. If you frequently slog through salted snowmel
sludge you *might* be concerned about steel corroding and take som
preventative measures

Although the super cheapo bikes aren't steel anymore, there are plent
of affordable ones that make excellent commuters - the Trek 540 (alread
mentioned) being one of them


-

(Chris Hansen) wrote in message . com...
Hello,

I've heard that steel gives a nicer ride and I've also heard that a
properly made aluminum frame is as nice as a steel frame. It seems
that when I read reviews for steel bikes people praise the ride
quality and when a bike is accused of having a harsh ride it's an
aluminum one.

Can anyone help clear this up for me? How did steel and aluminum get
the reputations they have? Is it possible that aluminum can be as nice
to ride as steel but often isn't? Does the price range affect it? Can
you suggest some good aluuminum commuter bikes (maybe road bike or
cyclocross with good tire clearance and is rack and fender compliant)
for $1000 or less with the kind of ride quality steel is famous for?

Thanks.

I own nine bikes, two aluminum, the rest steel, all road bikes. I
feel that a modern aluminum bike is fine. IMO, the factors that make
a comfortable ride are 1) tires (size and pressure), 2) fork rake, and
3) wheelbase.

My competition bike is aluminum frame / carbon fork with high pressure
23c tires. My number two bike is all steel with similar tires. Both
have nearly the same wheelbase and little fork rake. They feel
identical when riding.

OTOH, my fixed hear is an early 80s Peugeot (steel) with a wheelbase
almost three inches longer than the two good bikes, lots of fork rake,
and large 27x1.5 inch tires. It gives a noticably smoother ride. I
have similar experiences with a couple other older bikes, one a late
80s Cannondale aluminum.

Speaking only from my own experience,
Tom

DiabloScott wrote:

As far as commuter bikes go, there is a valid reason to look at steel:
aluminum bikes will dent much easier than steel, so if you're always
bumping the frame with parking meters, bike racks, and U-locks, steel
will hold up better.

That too is specific to the bike in question. A thick-walled,
straight gauge aluminum frame like an '80s Cannondale, Caloi, or
bonded Trek will be more resistant to denting than any .7/.4/.7 double
butted steel frame. They will hold up better if dented than the steel
bike, too.

Chalo Colina

frkrygow wrote:

It must have been around that time that some hack writing for Buycycling
magazine said "But it's harsh." Hey, they've got to say _something_
about each bike they test! And one of the rules is, say something
positive, and say just a little something negative, to "prove" you're
impartial. But it just won't do to admit the latest gimmick makes no
difference at all! ...

Personally, I think the great majority of "ride quality" statements are,
at best, misinformed or misjudged.
You can feel torsional stiffness in the bottom bracket. You can feel it
if a touring frame of insufficient stiffness starts to shimmy under
the influence of heavy packs. You can feel handling changes caused by
different frame geometries - rake, trail, wheelbase, etc.

In partial defense of Bicycling hacks and people who talk about ride
quality, I think possibly what happened is that people tried the early
Cannondale criterium frames. These had steep angles, ridiculously
short chainstays (40cm), short wheelbases, and probably high BBs, but
I don't recall. Of course they had skinny tires too, since you
couldn't fit anything else in. These traits make for twitchy-handling
bikes that transmit bumps directly to the rider. I'll bet that many
people attributed these qualities to the aluminum frame, although it
has nothing to do with aluminum per se.

OTOH I, like you, have an old Cannondale touring frame, which rides
very smoothly and is easy to ride no-hands. IMO, there may be
differences in "ride quality" which are not just fiction, but are
a consequence of bike handling. Riding a twitchy bike for a long
distance could be fatiguing and contribute to the "My bike beats me
up on long rides" complaint. If so, it doesn't have anything to do
with frame stiffness or material, though.



------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----