# Steel or alloy frames?



## avalon (26 Aug 2012)

I was wondering what type of frames people are choosing to tour on now that alloy frames are so cheap and readily available. My own preference, if I were looking for something new, would to be to stick with what I know and choose steel because of its reliability and ease of repair if it were to break.
I'm still using, as my wet weather/winter bike, a frame that I have had since 1980 and have never had any problems with it. The only maintenance it gets is a very occasional clean and a spray of oil down the tubes when they are exposed for repairs or replacement of other components, and it still, after 32 years, has no internal rust.


----------



## samid (26 Aug 2012)

I prefer steel bikes for the looks. I have a few, my oldest built up bike is a 1947 Hetchins, it was repainted about 20-25 years ago and still looks great, no rust to be seen anywhere. I also tour on a steel bike.


----------



## biggs682 (26 Aug 2012)

steel is reel for me as well


----------



## Ticktockmy (26 Aug 2012)

Touring wise if you break a frame or part of, it easier to find someone to weld it up again


----------



## Nigeyy (26 Aug 2012)

Aaah well... you might as well ask Shimano or Campy? Marmite or Vegemite? VHS or Betamax? (the last one was for those of us who are older)

Just my opinion: I don't think it really matters for the vast majority of us given the touring we do, and not for material riding characteristics. For riding characteristics, what really matters is the frame design, the components you use and your attributes and riding environment. I've used frames of different material with undesirable characteristics in both. Material is by far from the sole factor in how a frame behaves; there's too much else that comes into play.

Concerning repairability, I also don't put too much stock in this. Sure steel is better for repair, but let's ask this question: the next time you are touring and your frame breaks, what would you do? (assuming you survived the frame breakage or failure that is without a tour ending injury!) What if the frame broke _because of rust_? Would you want the frame still repaired anyway? If it's in a country where welders are few and far apart, would you trust the repair? Could you even find a welder who is skilled enough for a bike frame? Would it even be within a 30 mile radius? Let's even say you could find an appropriate welder close by -remember that the repair will result in paint damage -which is costly to restore, too! Would it come out cheaper than buying a cheap bike and putting racks on it? (I'd also bet you can find more places that sell bikes than welders, too). Let's not also discount the fact that you could even get a bike (or frame) shipped to you in many places -and those places that are so remote probably don't have welders in that next settlement over the hill either. One last point: what if your frame is warranteed? Do you think the warrantee would hold given a non-specialist welder getting their hands on it?

Of course, there are times where having a frame that is repairable is an absolute advantage -however, my thought is given what you need for a repair and the likelihood of finding it, I'd take the risk of getting a decent non-steel frame and components (regardless of the material!).

For full disclosure: my touring bike is steel, but I'd also be quite happy with any decent quality touring frame of any material. I also tour in "developed" countries and if my frame ever broke, I'd either buy a new bike to continue or rig up a fix if it was a rack eyelet.


----------



## mcshroom (26 Aug 2012)

I ride an aluminium tourer and a steel road bike. I don't think it makes much difference really.


----------



## avalon (27 Aug 2012)

Nigeyy said:


> Aaah well... you might as well ask Shimano or Campy? Marmite or Vegemite? VHS or Betamax? (the last one was for those of us who are older)


But many people at the time were of the opinion that Betamax was the better quality recording system. It didn't stop it becoming obsolete and every one knows Campag is far superior to anything else that has ever been or ever will be made in the cycling world .


----------



## avalon (27 Aug 2012)

every one knows Campag is far superior to anything else that has ever been or ever will be made in the cycling world^_^ .quote said:


> Having said that, Shimano may be a better choice for a touring bike because you can buy compatible parts throughout the world.


----------



## Drago (27 Aug 2012)

Quality is a 7 letter word... Shimano. I wouldn't tour abroad with anything else kitting my bike.


----------



## smokeysmoo (27 Aug 2012)

There is a saying that Shimano wears out, but Campag wears in.


I personally don't like Campag though!


----------



## samid (27 Aug 2012)

Nigeyy said:


> Aaah well... you might as well ask Shimano or Campy? Marmite or Vegemite? VHS or Betamax? (the last one was for those of us who are older)


You forgot "Nikon or Canon"  (sorry, just had to add that)


----------



## Yellow7 (27 Aug 2012)

Time for my tuppence. 'Quality' does not mean good, the word that preceeds it defines that, or not; 'Good quality' or 'bad quality'. In my view yes, good quality is a seven letter word, Rohloff.

As far as the original question steel is more forgiving than aluminium therefore minimising material stress, and reduces the chance of any problems on a pro-longed multi-country tour. Aluminium, being a relatively soft, and over-rated, is ok in designs where strength is not required, I'm not saying it's not suitable on a bike design but I woudln't travel outside Europe on one. Titanium offers the best of both worlds as it's as strong as steel but the same weight as aluminium, just a same about the price!


----------



## vernon (27 Aug 2012)

Nigeyy said:


> For full disclosure: my touring bike is steel, but I'd also be quite happy with any decent quality touring frame of any material. I also tour in "developed" countries and if my frame ever broke, I'd either buy a new bike to continue or rig up a fix if it was a rack eyelet.


 
I've had both steel and aluminium framed tourers and they both met my needs extremely well.

My steel framed Dawes Galaxy suffered from a fractured rear drop out in Orleans in France. I could have spent time trying to find somewhere that effect a trustworthy repair but, as the bike would be in need of a new drive train, wheels and a frame respray after any repair I decided that buying a bike was a better value solution.

This marked my entry into aluminium framed touring bikes when I bought a Decathlon Riverside 7 hybrid complete with mudguards, lights and pannier rack for less that I was going to spend refurbishing a ten year year old bike. The bike didn't let me down and is now owned by a pal.

At the end of the day it's down to personal taste which material one chooses for a tourer. There's some nice looking aluminium frames tourers out there and there's equally nice steel framed bikes too. I have returned to a steel framed bike only because it appeals to me, is bespoke and is unique. I am uninterested in the steel is real argument as I've not detected any difference in ride quality between the two materials.

Others might disagree....


----------



## threebikesmcginty (27 Aug 2012)

Nigeyy said:


> Aaah well... you might as well ask...Marmite or Vegemite?


 
You're kidding, right?

Vegemite is dung.


----------



## mickle (27 Aug 2012)

Steel. Unless you're racing, in which case carbon. 

Imho.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Aug 2012)

Yellow7 said:


> Time for my tuppence. 'Quality' does not mean good, the word that preceeds it defines that, or not; 'Good quality' or 'bad quality'. In my view yes, good quality is a seven letter word, Rohloff.
> 
> As far as the original question steel is more forgiving than aluminium therefore minimising material stress, and reduces the chance of any problems on a pro-longed multi-country tour. *Aluminium, being a relatively soft, and over-rated, is ok in designs where strength is not required, I'm not saying it's not suitable on a bike design but I woudln't travel outside Europe on one*. Titanium offers the best of both worlds as it's as strong as steel but the same weight as aluminium, just a same about the price!


 
Ehhhh .................. how come MTBs and I mean top end mountain bikes, race ones are made of 7005 alumimium and not steel? Downhill MTBs take a tremendous pounding and they are aluminium as are motorbike chassis legs and arms. I would consider a modern aluminium MTB hardtail frame to be a lot strong and lighter than an old steel frame made decades ago. I know which I would prefer to go touring on, the much newer frame of course.


----------



## Nigeyy (28 Aug 2012)

mmm. I prefer Marmite (hence avatar) but I will say I've been enjoying Vegemite recently. A bit more easty and less sharp. I'm still for Marmite.

Oh yeah, Shimano and VHS 



threebikesmcginty said:


> You're kidding, right?
> 
> Vegemite is dung.


----------



## overlander (28 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> . I know which I would prefer to go touring on, the much newer frame of course.



Not done much touring I guess, pretty much bet you won't be saying that after a thousand miles.


----------



## Crankarm (28 Aug 2012)

overlander said:


> Not done much touring I guess, pretty much bet you won't be saying that after a thousand miles.


 
You reckon ........... 1,000 miles is about 1 month's riding for me plus or minus a few days.

So what are you trying to say? You haven't done much touring, in which case why are you commenting on this thread?


----------



## mcshroom (28 Aug 2012)

I love the way people decide others have no experience. Have you ever done 1000 miles on an alu framed bike?

For the record my aluminium framed Dawes vantage has completed three fully loaded tours ranging between 400 and 1600 km (your 1000 miles), two more B&B tours of over 400km each. I have completed a number of (metric and imperial) century 

My steel bike is not a tourer, so has only done day rides of up to 240km. 

Both bikes have done day rides of over 200km. The aluminium framed bike is perfectly able to do long rides loaded or unloaded comfortably. The steel bike is able to do long rides with reasonable weight or without comfortably. 

Despite having a combined load of over 150kg (including myself) and being ridden on rough forestry tracks there is absolutely no structural damage to the tourer.

Just because you like steel touring bikes does not mean it's the only way to do things. My tourer is comfortable because it fits well, in the same way as audax bikes made of steel, aluminium, titanium or carbon fibre are comfortable if they fit well.

You can tour on anything up to a point. This carbon fibre bike is the one that Mike Hall set the unsupported round the world record on earlier this year: -







@Yellow7 On the topic of aluminium being soft, you could not be more wrong. Aluminium is a hard material. It is more rigid and less malleable (soft) than steel. This is why Aluminium bikes are supposed to give a harsher ride but a stiffer frame for power generation. With Titanium, I have heard far too many stories of cracked Ti frames to ever want to tour on one (of the owners I know 5 out of 7 of them have had to have the frames replaced on warranty in the first few years).


----------



## overlander (28 Aug 2012)

Well it's simple physics really, steel frames absorb more imperfections from the road, simple as that. Now, tolerance to an aluminium frame is another thing, but let's put it this way 99% of touring bikes have a steel frame for a good reason, I will admit I have not tried touring on an aluminium frame but why buck 200 years of hard gained experience. I do know that my commute to work is much more pleasant on my steel framed panorama than my aluminium trek now multiply that by 10 and once gain steel wins for distance. Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics.


----------



## mickle (28 Aug 2012)

mcshroom said:


> You can tour on anything up to a point. This carbon fibre bike is the one that Mike Hall set the unsupported round the world record on earlier this year: -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
A round the world record attempt is a race, not a tour.
Aluminum is very much softer than steel. Don't mistake frame rigidity for strength.


----------



## mickle (28 Aug 2012)

Wow, a full blown 'steel vs aluminum' thread, haven't seen one of these for ages!


----------



## Crankarm (28 Aug 2012)

overlander said:


> Well it's simple physics really, steel frames absorb more imperfections from the road, simple as that. Now, tolerance to an aluminium frame is another thing, but let's put it this way 99% of touring bikes have a steel frame for a good reason, I will admit I have not tried touring on an aluminium frame but why buck 200 years of hard gained experience. I do know that my commute to work is much more pleasant on my steel framed panorama than my aluminium trek now multiply that by 10 and once gain steel wins for distance. Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics.


 
Simple physics really ................... are you a physicist? You're not a metallagist which would mean you were more qualified to pontificate.

Have you carried out any studies or taken your opinions from those carried out by others?

99% of touring frames have a steel frame for good reason. Source of your statement? Have you carried out a survey? I tour but it is not using a touring frame. Does this mean I am excluded as a cycle tourist from your classification?

Why haven't you tried touring with an aluminium frame? Surely for thoroughness and completeness of your pontificating you should have done? And how about carbon fibre or bamboo frames?

Are you 200 years old ???

How come you multiply by 10? How does steel win again for distance? This statement is extremely vague.

Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics

Ahhh ........ simple physics again. Right you are .


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2012)

overlander said:


> why buck 200 years of hard gained experience







_Napoleon's aluminium touring bike broke a tube on the way into Moscow and he couldn't find a local who could fix it, so he had to resort to horse-riding to get home._


----------



## Bodhbh (28 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> _Napoleon's aluminium touring bike broke a tube on the way into Moscow and he couldn't find a local who could fix it, so he had to resort to horse-riding to get home._


 
Ha.

My 2004 Aluminium Rockhopper lasted 12-20k touring/commuting miles before snapping at the dropout. I dunno if that's good, bad or indifferent. The Tubus logo rack on the back bent out of shape first, so it had had a fair battering. Then again, the logo rack is steel and it was a simple matter to bend it back - it lives on on the next bike. Maybe that says something.

My new frame is a steel Inbred MTB. I chose steel so it could have some bottle mounts stuck on it by a frame builder and maybe if the same thing happens and something snaps it it can be fixed.

But does it really matter much in Europe, or even outside Europe if you can get a new frame shipped out?


----------



## Nigeyy (28 Aug 2012)

I really do think there's far more to a ride than the frame material.

I can attest that I had far more ride discomfort from an old Fuji steel frame (shook my fillings!) than from my Cannondale CAAD4 frame for example. I also think you have to factor in frame design, wheel build and tyres, saddle, rider weight, terrain, etc, etc.

Generalizing on frame material just isn't valid in my experience.



overlander said:


> Well it's simple physics really, steel frames absorb more imperfections from the road, simple as that. Now, tolerance to an aluminium frame is another thing, but let's put it this way 99% of touring bikes have a steel frame for a good reason, I will admit I have not tried touring on an aluminium frame but why buck 200 years of hard gained experience. I do know that my commute to work is much more pleasant on my steel framed panorama than my aluminium trek now multiply that by 10 and once gain steel wins for distance. Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics.


----------



## Brains (28 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> _Napoleon's aluminium touring bike broke a tube on the way into Moscow and he couldn't find a local who could fix it, so he had to resort to horse-riding to get home._


If you are going to be picky, he did Moscow to Warsaw by horse drawn sledge and then by horse drawn carriage to Paris. Even if his aluminium top tube had not broken, given the state of the roads and the snow,horse power was the best option available


----------



## mcshroom (28 Aug 2012)

mickle said:


> A round the world record attempt is a race, not a tour.
> Aluminum is very much softer than steel. Don't mistake frame rigidity for strength.



Softness (or more accurately hardness) is the deformation potential of a material. A harder material is not necessarily stronger, only less malleable.

Strength is an entirely different set of characteristics of a material.


----------



## avalon (28 Aug 2012)

Interesting to see people's views. Seeing that carbon fibre bike has made me re-think my own ideas about what a touring bike should be. I would love to have one for faster lightweight tours but I think I would still stay with steel if I were to do a heavily loaded, remote area tour.


----------



## overlander (28 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Simple physics really ................... are you a physicist?
> 
> Unfortunately yes i am a Dr at a large university granted not in material science.
> 
> ...


----------



## mcshroom (28 Aug 2012)

For a starter for ten (oof the top of my head) on Aluminium touring frames: -
Dawes Vantage
Dawes Horizon (pre 2009)
Dawes Kara-kum
Edinburgh Bicycle Cooperative Revolution Country Traveller


----------



## mickle (28 Aug 2012)

mcshroom said:


> Softness (or more accurately hardness) is the deformation potential of a material. A harder material is not necessarily stronger, only less malleable.
> 
> Strength is an entirely different set of characteristics of a material.


 
I stand corrected. I should have written:

An around-the-world record attempt is a race, not a tour.
Steel is very much harder than aluminum.
And don't mistake frame rigidity for strength.


----------



## overlander (28 Aug 2012)

Of course you are going to find some at the bottom end of the market. I am talking the likes of Thorn, roberts etc the more dedicated touring bike. Even if you go to the mid end touring bikes like my panorama that range is steel only. We could argue this all day, you could tour on a kids balance bike if you had the will to do it. But top end touring bike use steel end of story, its used for good reason, don't try and reinvent the wheel, a good touring bike uses steel.


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2012)

overlander said:


> But top end touring bike use steel end of story, its used for good reason, don't try and reinvent the wheel, a good touring bike uses steel.


 
Yes, of course.


----------



## mcshroom (28 Aug 2012)

overlander said:


> Of course you are going to find some at the bottom end of the market. I am talking the likes of Thorn, roberts etc the more dedicated touring bike. Even if you go to the mid end touring bikes like my panorama that range is steel only. We could argue this all day, you could tour on a kids balance bike if you had the will to do it. But top end touring bike use steel end of story, its used for good reason, don't try and reinvent the wheel, a good touring bike uses steel.



I'll take that as your acceptance that not 99% of touring bikes are steel then.


----------



## mickle (28 Aug 2012)

Mike Burrows suggests that it's impossible to tell the material a frame is made of from the ride qualities - so tiny are any the differences between a 'springy' steel frame and a 'stiff' aluniman one. A properly designed and manufactured frame will flex a matter of a few mm, much less than the flex which can be engendered in a saddle or tyre or buttock.

Grant Petersen suggests than the eventual failure of an aluniman frame is simply a matter of time - whereas a steel frame might enjoy a lifespan of twenty or thirty years.

Carbon? Who knows? I don't and I don't know anyone who does. I have a strong suspicion that +/- _everyone_ at the retail end of carbon fibre bike sales knows +/- zero about carbon fibre failure, expected lifespans, the effects of surface damage on tube integrity and longevity and that they are all crossing their fingers in the hope that the people who make them know what they're doing. What's the average warranty on a carbon frame these days?


----------



## overlander (28 Aug 2012)

mcshroom said:


> I'll take that as your acceptance that not 99% of touring bikes are steel then.


I do stand corrected :-)


----------



## rich p (28 Aug 2012)

Ti has only recently become an option on tourers. I have no idea whether they fail more than they should. I'm pretty relaxed about locking up on the continent but I'd be a bit more twitchy over a bike that expensive maybe. I've toured on alu and steel and the steel is like an armchair out of my small sample size compared to the harshness of the alu.


----------



## mickle (28 Aug 2012)

I know I sound like Grant Petersen's #1 fanboy having just read his excellent book, but a bunch of what he says I've been wittering on about for years. His book has really helped reinforce some of my existing views. Such as this: If a decent aluniman touring frame weighs in the region of +/- 4.5lbs and a steel frame +/- 5.5lbs and a complete bike weighs in the region of +/- 30lbs then the argument for aluniman's lower weight isn't awfully relevent - even more so when you consider all the extra touring shitola it'll be loaded with. And if the difference in springiness/flex/comfort is immeasurable between the two materials it leaves aluminam without a tangible performance advantage over steel.

Therefore steel is the only reasonable choice of material for a touring frame.


----------



## overlander (28 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Ti has only recently become an option on tourers. I have no idea whether they fail more than they should. I'm pretty relaxed about locking up on the continent but I'd be a bit more twitchy over a bike that expensive maybe. I've toured on alu and steel and the steel is like an armchair out of my small sample size compared to the harshness of the alu.


I see no real reason why you could not use it, except its harder to repair but i have never bought into that as you can pretty much get a new frame sent out to anywhere in the world.

I 100% agree the downside would be theft, i would be pretty nervous leaving a titanium bike lying about. I think if you are worrying too much about theft it can ruin your trip, we done Vietnam last year and one guy had an expensive Thorn Nomad with rohloff hub and he was paranoid about where he left it.


----------



## overlander (28 Aug 2012)

But then again just after reading an explanation from thorn cycles and they go into a reasonable explanation why they still use steel as opposed to titanium. Basically to get the same strength of steel the tubes need to be thicker hence you lose the weight saving. They also point out that they do seem to break more but concede its early days for the frames so might get better so as such steel is the only material they recommend.


----------



## Bodhbh (28 Aug 2012)

overlander said:


> But then again just after reading an explanation from thorn cycles and they go into a reasonable explanation why they still use steel as opposed to titanium. Basically to get the same strength of steel the tubes need to be thicker hence you lose the weight saving.


 
It seems to me part of the utility of a touring bike is the ability to leave it unattended without it attracting too much attention or putting your nerves on edge. For the price of a couple of pounds in weight you loose alot of this. 99.9% of the time you will be okay, but I think touring about on a big shiney lump of brushed titanium is not a great idea.


----------



## samid (28 Aug 2012)

As I already stated I like/use steel bikes but titanium is wonderful frame material. It is nice looking brushed, and you don't have to worry about paint chips or scratches. But I do have a sad titanium related experience, I had a Ti mountain bike stolen from my own garage.


----------



## Blue Hills (10 Sep 2012)

I've got an aluminium Cannondale with a mountain bike style frame - nice bike and there's no reason you couldn't tour on it with just stuff on the back as far as I can see.

But I discovered (should have known this I suppose but I'm not too techie) that the screw-in points on it are actually some sort of thing popped into a hole in the frame (doubtless some kind soul will tell me the proper techie name). This means that if one of my bottle cages breaks I can no longer just unscrew the screw holding it - the pop-in and the screw just turn together. For a similar reason I can no longer mount a rear mudguard on it. I know this can be fixed but it's a serious hassle. My old chro-mo hybrid is almost twice as old and will have no such problems.

For me, it would have to be steel. I can see no downsides at all.

I've also heard a few tales of late of titanium frames breaking. And who cares if you saved a little weight - pretty irrelevant when you're all packed up with a tent etc isn't it? I'll start thinking titanium/carbon might be good for a tourer when I see Cavendish and Wiggo racing to the line with a load of camping gear/pots and pans on the back.


----------



## Yellow7 (10 Sep 2012)

Working in the non destructive test (NDT) industry predominantly for the gas & oil industry we often receive titanium drill-string (sea-bed oil drilling) pipes for analysis & inspection. It takes a reasonable amount of time to acquire the skills to fabricate anything using it, including a bike frame, but if a frame has been welded with said skills then it would take as much stress without fatigue or crack-creepage occurring.

“_Basically to get the same strength of steel the tubes need to be thicker hence you lose the weight saving_” This is not a strength issue, both materials have very similar strength characteristics, a titanium bike uses thicker tubes to give the required stiffness characteristics needed on a loaded bike. Using the same size titanium tubing the bike would appear rather ‘squidgy’ / sagging due to it’s modulus of elasticity being half that of steel, hence the need for thicker tubing, but the strength is comparable.

This short page gives a brief summary rather well; http://www.differencebetween.net/object/difference-between-steel-and-titanium/

On my last tour to down-grade the appearance of the bike [frame] I covered the entire frame in black gaffa tape (double sided strips against itself so it wasn’t stuck to the frame directly) yet still had people saying how wonderful the bike looked and would I sell it!!

As far as “_you can pretty much get a new frame sent out to anywhere in the world_” is easy to say sitting from the comfort of ones computer but in the world of reality it’s not quite as easy, I’ve been there, albeit not for a frame.


----------



## thistler (13 Sep 2012)

Martin or Taylor? (hint: Taylor is never the right answer!) 

I just wanted to say that I am enjoying this thread. I assumed steel was the best for touring but there are some good arguments on both sides.


----------



## TheDoctor (13 Sep 2012)

Toured on 531, Ti and 7005. To be honest, I'd be hard pressed to feel the difference. Tyres and road surface make more difference to ride comfort IMHO.


----------



## Blue Hills (13 Sep 2012)

TheDoctor said:


> Tyres and road surface make more difference to ride comfort IMHO.


Makes a lot of sense to me, so I'd go with steel for the other practical reasons. Even plain chro-mo. Although I have a rather nice Reynolds-butted Hewitt I'm currently using an old chro-mo unbutted hybrid as a second tourer. Can't say that I'm aware that the lack of butted tubes makes a great diference. Folks feel free to correct me of course.


----------



## jakegil (13 Sep 2012)

and Koga use aluminium but what do top end manufacturers know about simple physics??? But then they also use carbon and steel so maybe they don't know either


----------



## Blue Hills (13 Sep 2012)

jakegil said:


> and Koga use aluminium but what do top end manufacturers know about simple physics??? But then they also use carbon and steel so maybe they don't know either


Well, physics isn't really my thing - and I rarely worry about it when sitting in a field. But surely you aren't suggesting a carbon tourer? My issue with alumnium is do do with mounting issues on my nice aluminium 'Dale - screw-ins effectively gone in two places.


----------



## jakegil (13 Sep 2012)

Blue Hills said:


> Well, physics isn't really my thing - and I rarely worry about it when sitting in a field. But surely you aren't suggesting a carbon tourer? My issue with alumnium is do do with mounting issues on my nice aluminium 'Dale - screw-ins effectively gone in two places.


 
Most of the Koga frames are aluminium, but they do a 'lightweight' carbon tourer http://www.koga.com/koga_uk/#3 Not sure i'd touch it though!


----------



## Blue Hills (14 Sep 2012)

Thanks for that jakegil - I know they are a good company but what on earth are they thinking? Madness, sheer madness - I can only think that it's aimed at banker mamils.


----------



## avalon (14 Sep 2012)

I suppose manufacturers will make anything that they think will increase sales and profits. It's easy to manipulate statistics to make it look like the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## mcshroom (14 Sep 2012)

User said:


> My pre-2009 Horizon had a steel frame.



How far pre 2009 though. The dark blue oversized tube Horizons (like LindaG's) are aluminium framed (chromo fork) and covered a period from at least 2005-2008, and I think it covered 2004 as well.


----------

