preferred-google-button
log in
register

If aluminium cost as much per tonne as titanium, it would be the premium bike frame material. Agreed?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • May 4, 2013 at 9:36 pm #18683
    Tom Amos

    Having bought an aluminium road bike, and been very happy with it, it has constantly occurred to me that the only reason that Alu frames have a stigma is because aluminium is a relatively cheap material to produce bike frames from. If alu suddenly flew up in price, it would suddenly become a premium material. Do you agree?

    I would go so far as to say that I prefer it from carbon fibre. My bike will withstand a real knock in a crash that a carbon fibre frame might get written off in.

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
1 2 3
  • Author
    Replies
  • May 5, 2013 at 6:06 pm #732223
    0
    dave atkinson

    robert.brady wrote:It simply

    robert.brady wrote:
    It simply isn’t feasible to come up with the current aero frame shapes using Ti or even new alu techniques like hydro forming. Alu and Ti TT bikes look laughably dated compared to carbon.

    not sure i agree that it’s not feasible. look at some of the stuff that kinesis are doing with superplastic forming; you can pretty much make any shape you want.

    and don’t forget that the daddy of all aero bikes is alu: the cervelo s1. And it’s still a better ride than many aero carbon bikes.

    it’s important to understand that aluminium didn’t get a very long development run before carbon was introduced. bike manufacturers picked up carbon so quickly for a simple reason: it’s easy to make complicated, light and strong structures with it. not cheap necessarily, but not hard.

    alu was relegated to ‘cheap’ bikes and wasn’t developed much. but what we’re seeing now is more of the R&D time going into to possibilities of alu. and there’s some impressive stuff out there: look at canyon and rose, and giant’s new TCR alu frame is only just over a kilo. a sub-1kg alu frame in the next two years is a certainty.

    May 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm #732221
    0
    Gkam84

    That one doesn’t count,
    That one doesn’t count, because he races steel aswell 😉

    May 5, 2013 at 5:39 pm #732219
    0
    TheHatter

    robert.brady wrote:Top end

    robert.brady wrote:
    Top end bikes are heading in a different direction now: aero. It simply isn’t feasible to come up with the current aero frame shapes using Ti or even new alu techniques like hydro forming. Alu and Ti TT bikes look laughably dated compared to carbon.

    Frames nowadays can be light AND strong AND stiff AND comfortable (to an extent) and that can be achieved with Ti and alu. The difference is; light Ti and alu is around 1200g while for carbon it’s around 900g and in some cases a lot less.

    You couldn’t put the same premium on alu as you can carbon. It isn’t justifiable.

    Alu bars and stems make sense to me because they’re more likely to bend rather than break leaving the bike ridable.

    Gkam84 wrote:
    Look at pro’s OUT of the race, alot of them are NOT using carbon frames 😉 ;)

    Got any pics?

    Rob


    snapped Dean Downings training bike at a press day last year : Steel!
    http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8269/8711344992_de1934fab6_z.jpg

    May 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm #732217
    0
    Dr. Ko

    If I would do Flanders again
    If I would do Flanders again I would pick my Early Carbon again, thin carbon tubes, 25 mm seatpost:
    http://innercitymobility.blogspot.de/2013/01/made-in-europe-french-carbon.html my personal soft ride 😀

    Between my 2.2 kg steel frames, 1.5 kg titanium and similar weight aluminium, the aluminium gives a harsher ride, I do not feel a difference between the steel and titanium rides.

    May 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm #732215
    0
    TheBigMong

    One of the reasons aluminum
    One of the reasons aluminum is so cheap is because it’s RIDICULOUSLY easy to work compared to other metals. It takes less energy to alloy, form, and weld than steel or Ti alloys. Even if the raw cost of aluminum was the same as Ti, Ti bikes would still cost more.

    May 5, 2013 at 1:19 pm #732213
    0
    Tom Amos

    RichTheRoadie

    RichTheRoadie wrote:
    NorthernRouleur wrote:
    Err No!

    Try riding Tour of Flanders on your Alu bike. I did, once. Try riding a bike with Alu forks, and you can quickly figure out why Alu frames are stiff. My wrists are still recovering.
    I have also had 3 bike frames fail with cracks in tubes, all of them Alu.


    Note the mention, and distinct difference, of GOOD alu. Besides which, wheel & tyre choice would make significantly more difference on a course like Flanders than frame material.

    Oh, and there was never any mention of alu forks.

    +1

    Agreed. I’ve got a carbon fork on mine and a carbon seatpost. Agree that you need those!

    May 5, 2013 at 1:10 pm #732211
    0
    Tom Amos

    NorthernRouleur wrote:Err

    NorthernRouleur wrote:
    Err No!

    Try riding Tour of Flanders on your Alu bike. I did, once. Try riding a bike with Alu forks, and you can quickly figure out why Alu frames are stiff. My wrists are still recovering.
    I have also had 3 bike frames fail with cracks in tubes, all of them Alu.

    Most comfy bike I have is an R3. The best combination of design and material in my book.

    I’m pretty sure I’ve read that Katusha use the Canyon Ultimate AL for several classics races as it is so tough and durable. I was surprised myself at that news.

    May 5, 2013 at 10:39 am #732209
    0
    RichTheRoadie

    robert.brady wrote:You

    robert.brady wrote:
    You couldn’t put the same premium on alu as you can carbon. It isn’t justifiable.

    Marketing has made the cycling world believe it isn’t justifiable.

    Have you ridden one (and, again, I mean GOOD alu – by which I mean nothing less than a CAAD10 or Specialized S-Works Allez, and preferably Gaulzetti / Stoemper / Pegoretti) to know?

    Also, aero isn’t for everyone. I would only buy aero if it was the best option for me fit-wise. It’s still only a very small portion of the market.

    May 5, 2013 at 10:34 am #732207
    0
    RichTheRoadie

    NorthernRouleur wrote:Err

    NorthernRouleur wrote:
    Err No!

    Try riding Tour of Flanders on your Alu bike. I did, once. Try riding a bike with Alu forks, and you can quickly figure out why Alu frames are stiff. My wrists are still recovering.
    I have also had 3 bike frames fail with cracks in tubes, all of them Alu.


    Note the mention, and distinct difference, of GOOD alu. Besides which, wheel & tyre choice would make significantly more difference on a course like Flanders than frame material.

    Oh, and there was never any mention of alu forks.

    May 5, 2013 at 7:50 am #732205
    0
    robert.brady

    Top end bikes are heading in
    Top end bikes are heading in a different direction now: aero. It simply isn’t feasible to come up with the current aero frame shapes using Ti or even new alu techniques like hydro forming. Alu and Ti TT bikes look laughably dated compared to carbon.

    Frames nowadays can be light AND strong AND stiff AND comfortable (to an extent) and that can be achieved with Ti and alu. The difference is; light Ti and alu is around 1200g while for carbon it’s around 900g and in some cases a lot less.

    You couldn’t put the same premium on alu as you can carbon. It isn’t justifiable.

    Alu bars and stems make sense to me because they’re more likely to bend rather than break leaving the bike ridable.

    Gkam84 wrote:
    Look at pro’s OUT of the race, alot of them are NOT using carbon frames 😉 ;)

    Got any pics?

    Rob

    May 5, 2013 at 7:30 am #732203
    0
    NorthernRouleur

    Err No!
    Try riding Tour of
    Err No!

    Try riding Tour of Flanders on your Alu bike. I did, once. Try riding a bike with Alu forks, and you can quickly figure out why Alu frames are stiff. My wrists are still recovering.
    I have also had 3 bike frames fail with cracks in tubes, all of them Alu.

    Most comfy bike I have is an R3. The best combination of design and material in my book.

    May 5, 2013 at 3:29 am #732201
    0
    RichTheRoadie

    The main reason we’re all
    The main reason we’re all riding carbon (well, I’m not, but ‘generally’) is because it’s cheap to make and the marketing folk make us believe it’s the thing to ride – the same reason that alu had a brief spell as the material of choice.

    All materials have their merits, AND their reputations – Ti for example id considered ‘comfortable’, but I’ve ridden Ti frames that’d rattle your teeth out, and my Baum has all the whip and power transfer of a Cervelo R3.

    In the same vein, alu’s reputation is for a stiff but harsh ride. Sure, many (most) cheap alu bikes will give exactly that, but a decent alu bike is an absolute joy to ride – my old CAAD9 is the bike I did my longest ride on (253km) and I felt pretty fresh at the end of it. The bike was comfortable and stiff.

    Carbon is generally favoured because it’s stiff, comfortable and light. Good carbon can be incredible, but I’d rather ride good alu than average carbon for the same money.

    If it were lighter the material we would all (still) be riding is steel. Good steel bikes give all the comfort of Ti or carbon, all the power transfer of carbon or alu, the longevity and ‘repairability’ of Ti and it’s still fairly easy to build to the UCI weight limit.

    That said, REALLY good alu is tough to ignore – the likes of Pegoretti’s Love #3, Stoemper’s Darrell and Gaulzetti’s Corsa are all delicious bikes and I would have any of those even over top end carbon.

    May 4, 2013 at 11:51 pm #732199
    0
    Gkam84

    bashthebox wrote:There’s a

    bashthebox wrote:
    There’s a reason pros use Carbon.
    carbon is better because the pros use it.

    WRONG, The pro’s have no choice as to what they are riding, the team are told their bike with be…. X and then they can fit whatever to it within the sponsor agreement.

    The reason they ride carbon in most races is because they are told to ride it.

    Look at pro’s OUT of the race, alot of them are NOT using carbon frames 😉 😉

    May 4, 2013 at 11:33 pm #732197
    0
    jasecd

    I’m riding a hired top of the
    I’m riding a hired top of the range carbon Domane this weekend, which certainly feels lovely but I wouldn’t say it is a massive improvement over my standard Alu bike. According to Strava I’m no quicker either.

    Having said that, it is pretty tasty on the rough stuff though I think it’s more to do with the 25mm tyres and the decoupler than the carbon used.

    I think if I had £4k+ to spend on a bike then I would undoubtedly buy a carbon frame, but my bike cost about £1k and at that price you can get a quality Alu frame with 105 or a really budget carbon number with Sora or worse. Ti didn’t even figure when I was shopping for it.

    Beyond a certain point you’re paying an awful lot extra for not much more. Alu certainly seems like the best value.

    May 4, 2013 at 10:53 pm #732195
    0
    bashthebox

    At the end of the day though,
    At the end of the day though, at our level, ride whatever sets your heart on fire. That’s why we do it, right?

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
1 2 3
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.