# Different frame materials



## banjoblues (13 Jul 2007)

Ok, so reading people's posts I think I now understand that steel is heavier than aluminium which is heavier than carbon which is slightly heavier than air. But, there are suggestions that there are other attributes to the materials which make each preferable in different situations. Can somebody explain please? And the same for forks?


----------



## gbb (13 Jul 2007)

Phew, theres a whole raft of steel materials alone. My knowledge isnt that good, but you could start with cheap'gas pipe' frames..heavy and cheap. 
You would progress something like
18-30 (IIRC)...cheapish steel
Reynolds 501..better
Reynolds 531..better still
Reynolds 531c....competition ?

Then you go to butted and double butted tubes which lighten the tubes by tapering them internally...shedding weight of course.

Dont quote me, thats just the way i understand it in very simple terms...no doubt someone will come along and put you (and probably me too) right.

Aluminium, carbon....wont even begin on those :?:


----------



## Monty Dog (13 Jul 2007)

Steel- probably the heaviest, but is springy and resilient. Commonly used alloys are chrome-moly and chrome-managanese. Main disadvantage - it rusts! Predominantly used for touring and expedition bikes - can be easily repaired - or with 'old-timers' and retro-fanatacists. Traditionally brazed but now welded. Good for forks but heavy.

Aluminium - most commonly used alloy are 6000 and 7000 series. Can be very light, but has fatigue limit and therefore has to be over-built to compensate - can be overly-stiff as a consequence. 6000 series frames need heat-treatment and so almost impossible to repair. Falling out of favour with top-end bikes these days. Common on bottom-mid range bikes up to £1000. doesn't make for good forks.

Titanium - weight-wise somewhere between allly and steel, but has the benefit of vitually infinite fatigue limit and corrosion resistance. Requires specialist cutting and welding, so pretty expensive. Has a reputation for a comfortable ride and good longevity. Commonly used alloys - 3al2.5v and 6al4v - the second is stronger and therefore more expensive. Some reasonably priced frames now available from China and Russia. Some mid range bike but prices can go stratospheric. One for the bike you'll keep. Probably too 'soft' for forks and expensive (I've got some!)

Carbon - increasingly popular on £1000+ bikes - stiff light and can be specifically engineered to suit many applications. Very good reputation for vibration damping. Big disdvantage - it doesn't like crashes or compression. Ubiquitous fork material these days - resilient and stiff.


----------



## hubgearfreak (13 Jul 2007)

http://www.winterbornebikes.com/index.php?ID=14

http://spokesmanbicycles.com/page.cfm?pageID=328


----------



## Keith Oates (14 Jul 2007)

Monty Dog has given a very good discription that I could not improve on, except to say for me the carbon bikes are very comfortable and I thoroughly enjoy riding them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## andy_wrx (14 Jul 2007)

Of course a heavy steel bike is heavier than a light aluminium bike...
...but a heavy aluminium bike is heavier than a light steel bike as well !

Even 10 years ago, cheaper bikes were steel, aluminium was more expensive, titanium was mega-megabucks and carbon stratospheric.

Because they're more shock and particularly vibration absorbent, steel and titanium are frequently used for touring and audax bikes, rather than harsher aluminium or fragile carbon.

But for road-race bikes or MTB's, manufacture and construction of aluminium frames in Taiwan and China means that aluminium is today comparatively a lot cheaper than it was and it's now the norm for starting-level enthusiast road race bikes or MTB's from Specialized, Trek, Giant, etc.

Yes, really, really cheap rubbish bikes (the £59.99 from Argos MTB type stuff) are really heavy steel (usually sold as 'high-tensile', not even as Chromoly or other alloys), but the norm for an aimed-at-enthusiasts bike is aluminium these days rather than steel.

If an enthusiast is riding a steel road bike, it's usually a more expensive, low-volume or frequently custom bike, using 653 or another exotic alloys, which will be more expensive than the mass-production aluminium bikes and perhaps lighter too.

Carbon has come down in price too, as a spin-off from its greater use in aerospace, sportscar, etc applications, and off-the-peg full-carbon bikes can be had for about a grand - but again you can get lighter weight but more expensive exotic aluminium or steel frames.


----------



## banjoblues (15 Jul 2007)

*thanks folks*

thanks folks, that's useful stuff


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Jul 2007)

[Sacrilege] Does it matter?[/Sacrilege]

Before I am beaten to death with a club made of a suitable material.

I must admit that this has never been a great factor in my choice.

Most of my bikes have been bought as a "overall package". When I bought my Catrike earlier this year I looked at aesthetics, design strength, luggage carrying, comfort, price and performance. Whilst it being aluminium obviously contributes to this, I did not exclude the Trice, Greenspeed or Scorpion because of the material.

If you are having a custom bike, or are at a performance level where it will make a diffrence then fine

For most of us though the material will be simply "one of the features" contributing to the choice.


----------



## banjoblues (15 Jul 2007)

What helped me (as a newbie) most about the replies was that they taught me that aluminium or carbon weren't the be-all and end-all of materials and that steel wasn't obsolete. The two links in particular put things in perspective.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Jul 2007)

I wasn't criticising the advice, just giving a different perspective!


----------



## banjoblues (15 Jul 2007)

No problem


----------



## derall (16 Jul 2007)

Aluminium has its disadvantages. Just a bit too much power on a climb, and bang goes the bottom bracket... Still, that's a folder and if that was steel it wouldn't be portable.

I was pleasantly surprised last weekend when I made it through the 5000km barrier on my Claud Butler, with frame intact - first time I've had an Alu frame last that far. But:

Steel bike owned: 3 
Steel bike frame failures: 0
Alu bikes owned: 3
Alu bike frame failures: 2

Any future bikes, I'll be buying steel whenever possible


----------



## User269 (16 Jul 2007)

banjoblues said:


> What helped me (as a newbie) most about the replies was that they taught me that aluminium or carbon weren't the be-all and end-all of materials and that steel wasn't obsolete. The two links in particular put things in perspective.



The trouble is, you'll be hard pressed to buy the frame material you want; fashion and the industry dictate what bikes are available from the mainstream suppliers. This is no bad thing, and in my view 'budget' bikes such as Trek 1000, Specialized Allez are superb (Ok, apart from wheels), and nearly as good as what I was racing on 10 years ago.

I've found low end Carbon bikes to be a disappointing from the ride point of view, but my current Trek Madone is brilliant in all respects. (well, apart from having to spend money that is). For TT'ing I've found my Litespeed titanium to be just the ticket.


----------



## inaperfectworld (25 Jul 2007)

some people will be interested in longevity and i understand that a steel bike can go on for as long as you want it to, but aluminium has a shorter life as there is risk of failure when the frame ages


----------



## starseven (25 Jul 2007)

The bike industry seems to like alu, I should imagine its easier to shape into complicated designs and I am impressed with the ride quality on a the 2007 Allez frame. I have had alu bikes that ride quite harshly though almost "zingy". Not always that unpleasant and maybe the sign of a stiff frame. 
My experience of steel frames new, old, is a ride that could be described as "supple" I dont cycle hard enough to tell whether this comfort is at the expense of performance. Its enough evidence for me to fancy a titanium frame over expensive aluminium.


----------



## Arch (26 Jul 2007)

And to grow a green spanner in the works - I believe it takes much more energy to extract and process aluminium ore than iron ore...

Not sure about carbon - I suppose you might say flippantly that you were locking up carbon in the frame, but as far as I know, the fibre/resin mix can't be recycled like steel can...

I think I definitely own two steel bikes and one alu, and to be honest, I'm not sure about my winter hack, I think it must be steel...

And I own one piece of carbon fibre - a suspension 'spring' I watched Mike Burrows make in a demo. Not fitted to a bike, it's just an ornament...


----------



## yorkshiregoth (26 Jul 2007)

Don't Pinarello make a magnesium framed bike?


----------



## Arch (26 Jul 2007)

yorkshiregoth said:


> Don't Pinarello make a magnesium framed bike?



As did Kirk in the.. 80's?

Just don't let it catch fire...


----------



## barq (26 Jul 2007)

yorkshiregoth said:


> Don't Pinarello make a magnesium framed bike?



Its not unusual for MTB suspension forks to have magnesium lowers.


----------



## fossyant (26 Jul 2007)

Don't forget the stainless 953 steel - light and very strong, and probably very long lasting.

My best steel machine is Columbus SLX - super butted cro-mo with spirals inside tubes at the bottom bracket area for increased strength (for those that didn't know) - that frame is 15 years old. So long as you look after the paint, ensure it get's a coat of waxoil when you buy it, then steel will outlast most materials. This 953 stuff looks fab - this may well be the material of my next machine.

Don't dismiss a good steel frame. The only problem with a custom steel frame, it will probably cost more than a cheap carbon. My SLX was about £450 for the frame only - 15 years ago, similar quality hand built ones now sell for £800-£1000 - frightening cos you can get a full carbon/ultegra bike for that.


----------



## peejay78 (28 Jul 2007)

i have a condor acciaio with dedacciai 16.5 tubing. it's ridiculously light and fast for a steel bike. the welds are invisible and it handles beautifully. 

i love it.


----------



## Van Nick (31 Jul 2007)

Have a look at the following thread on Bike Radar, which shows photographs of a spectacular failure of a Litespeed titanium frame.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12538098


----------



## HJ (31 Jul 2007)

I did something similar to my steel framed Dawes Shadow, the difference is the my Dawes must have been about 20 years old (it was second hand when I bought it and I rode it daily for nearly 10 years).


----------



## Blue (4 Aug 2007)

Keith Oates said:


> Monty Dog has given a very good discription that I could not improve on, except to say for me the carbon bikes are very comfortable and I thoroughly enjoy riding them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I've been riding my carbon frame since April but took my Alu bike out today as I've changed the 53T ring for a 49T and wanted to see how it felt. I liked the gearing, but the roads seemed to have deteriorated markedly overnight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Think I'll stick a 49T ring on the carbon frame and leave the Alu for the grime of winter. Carbon is soooooooooooooooo much nicer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Paul_Smith SRCC (10 Aug 2007)

I have posted this before that you may find useful.

You do of course find many different versions of each type of frame material but here are some very general guidelines that I have tried to put across in a plain and simple manner, they are my opinions based on 26 years as a club cyclist and 20 years as a specialist cycle retailer: 

Comparison of frame materials

Aluminium Alloy: Often simply referred to as ‘Alloy’ Light, cheap, reasonably robust although not as comfortable when compared to the others, which is why most will have carbon forks. Alloy supposedly has the most performance drop off, which in fairness only really effects a racing cyclist where a few percent reduction in performance can make the difference (especially in their heads) of winning or coming second, in reality that applies more to the older lighter frames when Pro’ riders used extremely light versions (now most pro teams use Carbon), the modern budget frames use a heavier, more robust alloy and are of course aimed at a different style of riding. They are now the most common option in the mid range and upwards frame sets, fairly robust, as they will normally dent as apposed to crack. Normally the price dictates a purchase of a frame built in alloy, that does not mean that you will not be satisfied, you will see quite a few older frames still being ridden by club cyclists who find them perfectly adequate, plus many don’t have any complaints re’ comfort or performance drop off. Although most refer to these frames in general terms as ‘alloy’ if we are being pedantic then strictly speaking this is wrong, as steel is an alloy of carbon and iron, titanium is normally aluminum and vanadium, for example Airborne (now Van Nicholas ) use mainly 3% Aluminium, 2.5% Vanadium and as such called Ti 3-2.5 in most of their models.

Carbon Comfortable, very light, efficient at transferring energy into propulsion as the material does not flex as much as other materials. Although strong they can be delicate, where other materials dent, Carbon will often crack, a friend of mine had a Colnago Carbon C40 that he had just finished cleaning in the garden, he stepped back to admire his pride and joy, just out of reach it caught a gust of wind, fell over, caught the chain stay on the rockery and cracked. As such not normally the choice for audax/touring bikes where robustness may be preferred. Most common rider is either a racing cyclist or someone who still likes to ride a racing bike down the cafe on a sunny Sunday morning, especially when you are feeling a little bit frisky in the speed department (as I get older this happens less, normally one week in May and one in August, except of course when I have a tail wind), plus it can be rather pleasing to sit with your mates remembering how good you once was and how super your new bike is; no harm in that, it's what cycling is all about 

Steel: Comfortable, very durable (if built correctly) with low performance drop off with age. These days only really used by club cyclist when the frame is built by a craftsmen, you are really paying for the workman ship. Many cyclist like to know who built their bike, they like the fact that they are having something built often to their own specification, you can personalise your frame with your own braze on items, light bosses, extra bottle bosses etc, you can even chose your own colour. In the past all top quality frames were purchased this way, as it was how you got exactly what you wanted, both in quality and especially frame size. The old diamond shape frame being less adaptable interms of variations in riding position than the modern sloping top tube frames; even Lance Armstrong uses an off the peg frame size. Although I fall into this category, as in uses as steel frame, not Lance Armstrong, I have to admit that modern off the peg frames are now so good both interms of production quality and the flexibility that the modern geometry gives you to achieve the perfect riding position, that the necessity to have a bike made to measure is less of an issue; but I still like them, I have some that are twenty years old and still going strong. Normally purchased by traditional types who still relate to when this was the way things were and if it was good enough then well......Ok Ok, I admit riders like me and even.

Titanium: Becoming more popular, virtually no performance drop as they don’t even rust, comfortable, light, yet robust. Performance wise not quite as responsive as carbon or alloy (alloy when new that is), although really it is that not far off, some pro riders now even use Titanium like Magnus Baksted a former Paris Roubaix winner, especially in races where comfort can become an issue, for example over the cobbles of the Paris Roubaix, as riders are bashed about so much it can lead to fatigue. The down side is that Titanium is very hard to work/build with; so most don't! On the upside because of this the workman ship simply has to be of top quality and it shows, Titanium frames do look and are very well made. Most common used when someone wants a fast, responsive, light comfortable (ideal for longer day rides/audax), yet robust bike and of course where price is not so much of an issue.

Most titanium manufacturers use the 3AL 2.5V grade, the 6/4 grade is usually only used for pure race bikes, it is also as a finished frame more expensive, as the raw material is more difficult to both make into tubes and then to build. Many also believe the 3AL 2.5V grade is more suitable, especially for Audax frames where riders are not looking for something quite as stiff as a full on race bike.

Comparison of fork materials

As for forks nearly all the quality road frames made in the materials above will now use Carbon, with the possible exception of the quality steel Audax/touring frames that will still often be specified with steel forks. As for the other frame materials listed above, alloy frames will seldom use alloy forks as this will give a harsh ride. Titanium frames will not often use Titanium forks as they can vibrate when brake is applied, so carbon again is the norm'. Of course when the main frame is carbon it follows that the forks will be as well.

In all cases where carbon forks are used I would recommend a recognised manufacturer, plus if you do have a crash resulting in a fairly substantial impact then I would always recommend new forks; steel will bend to show the impact, carbon will not.

Paul Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk

Some links you may find useful
www.vannicholas.com/ResLib/WbmTitanium.aspx
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html
http://www.caree.org/bike101framematerials.htm



banjoblues said:


> Ok, so reading people's posts I think I now understand that steel is heavier than aluminium which is heavier than carbon which is slightly heavier than air. But, there are suggestions that there are other attributes to the materials which make each preferable in different situations. Can somebody explain please? And the same for forks?


----------



## Christopher (10 Aug 2007)

There are also more exotic materials that have been tried but haven't been taken up: *beryllium* (abundant, light, very stiff, poisonous, unbeliveably expensive to use in a frame), *metal matricies* (I guess they don't offer any real advantage over everything else) and *magnesium* (ditto)


----------



## Paul_Smith SRCC (10 Aug 2007)

Kirk Precision used magnesium , distribued by Dawes if I recall

Paul Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk



Frustruck said:


> There are also more exotic materials that have been tried but haven't been taken up: *beryllium* (abundant, light, very stiff, poisonous, unbeliveably expensive to use in a frame), *metal matricies* (I guess they don't offer any real advantage over everything else) and *magnesium* (ditto)


----------



## Christopher (10 Aug 2007)

Pinarello Dogma used magnesium also. I wonder how it rides?

I saw a Kirk Pricision at Richmond Park this year. It hadn't yet snapped in two as I hear they tend to. Looked very heavy. Andy Gates off C+ had a Kirk, which snapped...


----------



## Mankymitts (10 Aug 2007)

Never come off your bike? Think you'll never come off in the future? Still fancy a carbon framed bike ?

MM


----------



## spesh (10 Aug 2007)

Frustruck said:


> There are also more exotic materials that have been tried but haven't been taken up: *beryllium* (abundant, light, very stiff, poisonous, unbeliveably expensive to use in a frame), *metal matricies* (I guess they don't offer any real advantage over everything else) and *magnesium* (ditto)



Metal matrix composites did have a performance advantage over typical aluminium alloys, but the material was virtually impossible to work or weld. IIRC, only Specialized - working with Duralcan - managed to work out how to make butted tubes and weld them together, resulting in the Stumpjumper M2 and Allez M2 framesets. They used their M2 MMC to make their top-end frames for about 8-9 years, replacing it with their M4 proprietary aluminium alloy in 1999.


----------

