What are the main differences between steel, aluminium and Carbon Fibre bikes?

[gbb]

Don't you believe it. The weight of a good quality steel frame is not that much different from an alloy one [many of which are actually heavier] and even carbon won't exactly make one look like a battleship. The all up weight of my old Dawes is only just over 10kg and there were many better and lighter than that. The real difference for most ordinary riding is £££££.

I stripped an old 70s/80s Renolds 531 Raleigh and when bare, there's precious little weight difference between that and my 2008 Bianchi Via Nirone frame, very little.
Now, if it had modern geometry, i think it'd be as comfortable as my carbon, definately better than an alloy. It can be the forks that hugely influence comfort, my Raleigh has that typical 70s/80s huge sweeping rake, looks awful nowadays, but bugger, it soaks up road buzz, like cycling on the smoothest of tarmac.

 

[Manonabike]

I stripped an old 70s/80s Renolds 531 Raleigh and when bare, there's precious little weight difference between that and my 2008 Bianchi Via Nirone frame, very little.
Now, if it had modern geometry, i think it'd be as comfortable as my carbon, definately better than an alloy. It can be the forks that hugely influence comfort, my Raleigh has that typical 70s/80s huge sweeping rake, looks awful nowadays, but bugger, it soaks up road buzz, like cycling on the smoothest of tarmac.

That's the point I was trying to make, I don't think modern geometry offers any improvement, none that I can notice anyway.

My 58cm 351 frame weights 1.8kg while my new Ti weights 1.4kg. I think the problem for my 351 starts with the forks which weight 800gr while my new forks weight 370gr. normally the "7" shaped stems are a lot heavier than an ahead stem...... and so on.

For my next project I will get a good 351 frame and fit CF forks. I'm pretty sure that it can be lighter than most alloy frame and be much more comfortable.

 

[P.H]

my Raleigh has that typical 70s/80s huge sweeping rake, looks awful nowadays, but bugger, it soaks up road buzz, like cycling on the smoothest of tarmac.

It's the geometry rather than the shape that will provide that comfort, If you had straight forks with the same offset and trail, I doubt you'd tell the difference.

 

[P.H]

I'm being totally biased as he's in Norwich, but this bloke makes amazing steel frames

http://www.donhoubicycles.com/

Yes, beautiful frames, real craftsmanship. Though when it comes to riding one I can't see how it would feel different than something tig welded in Taiwan. It's my opinion that fit is everything, well 90% at least. I've just parted company with a great Ti frame, I really wanted to love it, fitted it with better components of any of my other bikes, expensive tyres, even let it live in the lounge, but the geometry was slightly wrong for me and it just didn't get ridden.

 

[black'n'yellow]

That's the point I was trying to make, I don't think modern geometry offers any improvement, none that I can notice anyway.

My 58cm 351 frame weights 1.8kg while my new Ti weights 1.4kg. I think the problem for my 351 starts with the forks which weight 800gr while my new forks weight 370gr. normally the "7" shaped stems are a lot heavier than an ahead stem...... and so on.

For my next project I will get a good 351 frame and fit CF forks. I'm pretty sure that it can be lighter than most alloy frame and be much more comfortable.

You mean '531' right..? And the '7' shaped stem is called a 'quill' stem...

It's the geometry rather than the shape that will provide that comfort, If you had straight forks with the same offset and trail, I doubt you'd tell the difference.

not quite - the curve offers some dampening properties over a straight blade. When I had my 653 built in the early 90s, I was offered a choice between straight and curve blades for this reason.

 

[Manonabike]

not quite - the curve offers some dampening properties over a straight blade. When I had my 653 built in the early 90s, I was offered a choice between straight and curve blades for this reason.

Yes, I read something that confirms that, the larger the rake the more dampening.

 

[gbb]

Yes, I read something that confirms that, the larger the rake the more dampening.

I'm sure someone will correct me, but that rake has a disadvantage as well...the same Raleigh that feel so smooth over tarmac, also has the turning circle of a battleship . Its truly awful for commuting in tight traffic.

 

[P.H]

not quite - the curve offers some dampening properties over a straight blade. When I had my 653 built in the early 90s, I was offered a choice between straight and curve blades for this reason.

This is right, the disagreement comes in quantifying that some. When measuring it has been attempted it's so small you'd have more chance feeling a pea under a dozen mattresses. Other's attribute all sorts of magical properties to the curve. If you put a fork in a vice you'll see how easy it is to flex for and aft and impossible up and down, whatever the shape.

 

[P.H]

Yes, I read something that confirms that, the larger the rake the more dampening.

Rake is more commonly known a offset, it's achieved in three ways, placement of the dropout, curve of the fork, angle at crown. It's a matter of geometry rather than shape, there's no reason a straight bladed fork would have less rake than a curved one.