Mine may well have become vaguely lost in the great mist of time, but those distant memories, the harsh realisations and promises that I made to myself many years ago have come trickling back to haunt me in recent months… namely where I said I would never ride another aluminium bike frame.
> 10 of the best British bike brands of the ’70s and ’80s
First things first: before all the love for this great Coke can-like material comes flooding in down in the comments section, please do note that this is an opinion piece. It’s based off my own many decades of experience riding bikes made from everything from bamboo to magnesium, with a whole heap of steel, titanium and aluminium thrown into the mix… oh and of course, some metal matrix too. These are my own groans aches and opinions, and I don’t expect everyone to agree!
The pre-AL era
When I started riding and racing bikes in the ’70s it was about steel, all about steel. From the forks right through it was all that good old hard stuff. There weren’t really any other viable frame material options back then.
Sure enough the different tubing grades and builds did make for very different rides between the various combinations available, and mostly they were of the slightly forgiving kind. Thankfully in recent times there is some form of appreciation for steel coming back, and maybe even those younger riders who’ve never slung a leg over a quality steel horse will one day try one and find out why us old fellas love them so much (or at least some of us still do), even if they have drifted out of vogue.
> Southern Steel: take a trip down memory lane with these classic 20th century bike builders
Material world order
Perhaps I was lucky that I went from riding steel straight to various forms of titanium frames, and then to carbon fibre – lucky as in there were only a few fleeting encounters with the bone shacking and wrist jarring frights without the delights of aluminium bikes. Even then those that I did ride were mostly fat-tubed mountain bikes, where much of that harshness was padded out with big tyres, suspension, cross-laced wheels and slack angles.
I did have a couple of reasonable aluminium road frames back around the turn of the century, but even then I found them to be super harsh on the lower back and my wrists, which were rattled to popping point after years of pre-suspension mountain biking.
Back then, aluminium had become the de rigeur material of choice for frame building, mostly because it was so cheap and easy to get hold of and mass produce in the Far East… and yep, just about all of the major pro road teams did ride aluminium bikes for a while, although their rides were generally tempered a little by carbon forks.
Even so, many of those frames were still very harsh in my opinion, albeit that they were compliantly rigid. For me they were just too rough and not quite ready, although perhaps my opinion would be different had I been groomed on aluminium from the start.
At around about that same time, Cipollini et al were all racing around on those gorgeous, bold Cannondales. Cipo made fat aluminium look like sex on two wheels, and so when I was offered a good price for one as an end of line clear out (by friends with a bike shop) of course I jumped at the chance.
It was a dull and dark blue in colour, and so I managed to get friends in the bike industry to spray it up in bright sparkling green. I built it up with all clean and polished Campagnolo kit, and garnished it with highly polished stem and bars. It did look the dog, even with those eyesore extended rear stays.
It didn’t take long for me to start loathing the harshness of that ride, and then the lower back troubles, shoulder and wrist ache became a regular thing. It was not a bike that I could ride for hours on end, and as much as I loved the looks of that green Hulk-like beast, it just had to go.
For a while I did get through a couple more aluminium frames, things just panned out that way. One was of the same stiff ilk and was promptly sold, the other (a Diamondback) was slightly easier on the spine, but was so flimsy that on its very first outing to Mallorca, the down tube took a huge ding in the bike bag, and so it still lingers in the back of a shed somewhere.
Grand designs?
At that time I wasn’t wholly sure whether that hard ride was partly down to the frame design (the rear stays), or whether it was simply that aluminium really had not gotten much easier on my ageing body, so I decided not to compromise again on an aluminium road bike.
As luck would have it I did get hold of a couple of titanium frames just after this: a Merlin XLC compact road frame, and a Litespeed Blue Ridge ‘touring’ frame. This duo added a whole new level of plushness to my ride immediately, and one that had most definitely made me a titanium frame fan boy.
Times have moved on, and I’ve shifted continents. Those titanium bikes are still around and almost as sweet as ever but, just about everything from the carbon forks to the groupsets are worn out, and being based in part of Asia where anything but pure race bikes and kit are an issue to find, and where someone six foot tall is considered to be a yeti, it’s hard to get hold of viable alternatives.
I have a couple of carbon road frames around, but they don’t really suit the riding I mostly do these days: hot and rough roads (and gravel), often with climbs that make the Bwylch y Groes seem like a mill pond.
Still shaken, and stirred
This is where the evil aluminium sneaked back into my life, just like that proverbial crazy ex from hell. On a trip to the USA I managed to mail order an aluminium gravel bike of Belgian origin. Before I’d even finished assembling it I knew it was potentially a beast of back-breaking burden, and sure enough I was soon shown to be right.
I did consider selling it almost immediately, as the discomfort was just too much for me; however, there was no way of me getting an alternative, and so I’ve stuck with it… on and off that is.
Just over a year ago I did take a trip to another region with this bike (it was the only fully functioning option at the time), which was when the wrath of the second wave of the pandemic struck, leaving me stranded with nothing but this bike for company ever since.
As much as I’ve swapped out the wheels, widened the tyres and softened the saddle, it just doesn’t cut it for me in the comfort department. Okay it is a gravel bike, but the ride is so harsh that I’ve almost 90% switched to riding it on the roads now.
My back, my ribs, my shoulders and my neck have taken such a pounding in the last year, which takes me right back to the sensation of that early Cannondale. Aluminium truly is the work of Satan Cycles Inc, at least as far as I’m concerned! Sure there are those younger riders out there who can ride on razor blades, and who have never known any different. But, one day, they most probably will.
For me, as I scour and search for ways of turning aluminium into something more rideable, I do have to remind myself not to fall into the trap of buying more of the stuff simply because it’s all I can get hold of. For now I’ll stick mostly to the hard stuff and soften the tyre pressure some more, just until I can find a ride less brutal on my old body…
116 thoughts on “Aluminium frames are the work of the devil”
I’ve only ridden steel,
I’ve only ridden steel, aluminium and carbon fibre, but I don’t really believe that the frame material makes that much difference to the ride compared to tyre pressure. Is it a placebo effect?
I’d argue that wheels are
I’d argue that wheels are equally, if not more important. I built a Ti Litespeed with Ksyrium SLs that made my lower back numb. In desperation I switched in some wheels from my touring bike and it rode like a magic carpet. Still ride it more or less daily 20 years later, though now it has some BlackInc carbon wheels from my cannibalised Factor.
I don’t believe in wheels
I don’t believe in wheels providing much suspension apart from the tyres. Surely a mm or two compliance in a wheel is dwarfed by the tyres unless they’re super hard.
Funnily enough, I was
Funnily enough, I was thinking the same about tyre pressure – especially on old alloy frames with insufficient space for modern wheels and 25mm + tyres – though if you have the space and have can range between 60-80 psi that’s quite a difference. I run my rear tyre at 80, the front at 65.
Well built wheels are a game changer… hadn’t bought a factory set for years until I got the BlackInc ones with the Factor…
Have got to say I’m beginning
Have got to say I’m beginning to believe in the wheels making a difference! Have swtiched from the stock 2 cross wheels on my Specialized Allez to some slightly fancier Shimano Ultegras. There is very definitely a sort of tingling numbness at the end of rides (feet and hands) that I’ve never experienced before. I don’t know if it’s just thicker/fewer/higher tension spokes, the pattern, or maybe even the reduced inner rim width?
Am hoping I get used to it, was expecting to notice a slight difference in reduced weight but so far as an upgrade it hasn’t been the improvement I was hoping for!
IanEdward wrote:
I want to see a blind wheel test where some riders go round a known course a few times with sets of different wheels to see if they can figure out which is which. Probably best to disguise the wheels rather than having the cyclists not being able to see (maybe blinkers?).
Have to disagree there. Apart
Have to disagree there. Apart from the odd Pegoretti, most Al bikes (these days) are very low end and come with very cheap, factory made wheels – as do many bikes as its an easy way for retailers to bump up their margins.
Changing them for a better set, or a decent set of hand-built wheels will make a huge difference. The weight difference alone can be 400-500g. Then you can add (or take away) brake rub, poor bearings, cheap spokes…come on…you can’t mean that.
Chris Hayes wrote:
I mean well built wheels at some minimum quality. Maybe £200 upwards?
Also, test hand built vs factory made.
I’m of the same opinion plus
I’m of the same opinion plus it all depends on the kit fitted to the frame and, to a certain extent the geometry of the frame
I have a cheap aluminium disc frame which I built with cheap parts and 23mm tyres back in 2015. It was terrible. I used it for my ‘hour record’ rides (how fast I can do a short route that once took me an hour)
As I’ve migrated better kit on to it from my Sunday best bike it’s turned into a real gem. Carbon bars, carbon seatpost, carbon wheels with 28mm tubeless tyres and suddenly I can ride it for hours.
28mm tubeless likely makes
28mm tubeless likely makes the most difference, though I’d put a carbon seat post 2nd as they can have a couple of mm compliance.
Often overlooked is the harsh
Often overlooked is the harsh fork and handlebar combo. I had a Specialized Sequoia steel bike with a carbon fork that had no give whatsoever. It was brutal on the wrists and upper body–took me a while to realize the source as we are mostly conditioned to think about the frame itself being inherently responsible for ride compliance
I agree, having tried Ti
I agree, having tried Ti Gravel bike and own a steel MTB, still think the AL road bikes have been more comfortable over distance, the biggest change I made was adding 2mm of rubber (current Frame can only handle 25mm) but running 85-90psi vs 23mm’s at 100-110psi has been a HUGE difference in both perceived energy output and comfort
My aluminium specialized
My aluminium specialized secteur was the most comfortable bike I’ve ever ridden (25mm tyres). Going from that to a steel genesis day one was so bad I thought something was broken. My next bike was a carbon canyon – probably on par with specialized. Now I’m back on steel (fairlight) and that’s probably the best, but not by much. Sounds like you’ve had very bad luck with aluminium frames! (Or I’ve had very good luck).
I had a Scott Aluminium bike
I had a Scott Aluminium bike and it was the biggest POS but it got me back into riding. I decided if this was Aluminium my next bike would be carbon. Forward a few years and did a holiday where I rented a caad12 because it was the same as my Evo at home but cheap to rent. It was brilliant and so close to the Evo I bought one when I got home as a winter bike. I’ve just killed it by ripping off the braze on! She will be missed. Wheels do make a big difference even the same tyre/tube combo. Recently gone tubeless and 28mm on a bone shaking aero bike and honestly has turned it into an all dayer.
Most comfortable bikes I’ve
Most comfortable bikes I’ve ever ridden: Mason Definition (Al), Kinesis T3 (Al), Bianchi Infinito (carbon), Cervelo R5 (carbon)
Least comfortable bikes I’ve ever ridden: Felt FA (Al), Cervelo S3 (carbon), Genesis Day One (steel), Van Nicholas Ventus (Ti)
The Genesis and Van Nic were particularly harsh, despite steel and titanium allegedly providing a “magic carpet” ride.
I don’t think frame material makes a blind bit of difference to ride quality. Geometry, tube selection, wheels and tyres, however…
Steve is just excited about
Steve is just excited about his limited knowledge and over read past issues of monthly cycling magazines. Tyre pressures affect ride quality more than frame material. “My back, my ribs, my shoulders and my neck have taken such a pounding in the last year,” Rubbish -looking at your position in the last picture, nothing that two classes of yoga a week and a strict diet couldn’t improve.
I have some rubbish carbon and some delicious alloy frames, set up correctly they are all joy machines.
Steve needs to take up golf
I just can’t believe that
I just can’t believe that there are people still trotting this out!
Like for like, carbon is the more ‘comfortable’ material for making frames. I have tested this out by swapping every single bit of kit off a Defy Composite 1 onto an aluminium Defy frame which I use as my wet weather bike. Simply put less vibration comes through the (exact same bars) on the CF one.
I fully accept that there are great alu bikes out there but it’s nonsense to try and claim it’s all down to the build, or the tyres or something else becasue you’re an alu fanboy.
Gimpl wrote:
I will not contest that you have tested everything. The above example however only says something about the front tyre, the front wheel, and the fork (and the stem, but that is negligible)
JL77 wrote:
I will not contest that you have tested everything. The above example however onsy says something about the front tyre, the front wheel, and the fork (and the stem, but that is negligible)— Gimpl
So the front tyre, wheel and stem were the same ones – I just swapped them from one frame to the other.
Ironically the fork on the aluminium frame is also CF – I do wonder why manufactures do this……………………..
Gimpl wrote:
What you’ve actually compared there are price points, not frame materials.
Well with materials science like that backing you up, who am I to argue?
At this point I wonder if there’s a whoosh parrot coming my way.
srchar wrote:
No idea what a ‘whoosh parrot’ is.
Re your price point argument – nonsense! The price gap between the Defy 1 frame and fork I bought compared to the Composite frame and fork was minimal. I paid about £1300 for the Composite 1 (full bike with Ultegra). At the time the Defy 1 was selling for £995 with 105. I transferred all of the Ultegra kit plus wheels, handlebars, stem and saddle directly from the Composite 1 onto the Defy 1 frame. It’s a direct comparison of CF v Alu. I don’t need to be a scientist to be able to distinguish.
I simply don’t understand why people have such difficulty accepting it.
I still have both bikes and I love them both.
I’d never heard of a ‘whoosh
I’d never heard of a ‘whoosh parrot’ either though am very familiar with a general ‘whoosh’
I think it is blue.
I think it is blue.
Beautiful plumage
Beautiful plumage
(can’t find a parrot and squirrel together, but this is cute)
Should have looked harder
Should have looked harder
Gimpl wrote:
Thanks for confirming the 31% price difference.
As you have confirmed, it’s a comparison of two bikes in different price brackets.
And also fails to correct for
And also fails to correct for confirmation bias. They *think* the new shiny will be better so the brain makes it so. The only way to prove this out is with vibration sensors at the seat post and stem.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Another alu fanboy that simply can’t accept reality.
I have different suspension settings in my car – not surprisingly I can tell the difference between them. I also have two bikes that I love and won’t sell – not surprisingly I can tell the difference between them. In my case the alu one was the new ‘shiny’ one – why didn’t I ‘think’ that one was less buzzy?
To back up your case please explain why my aluminium frame comes with a CF fork and seatpost. Why do manufactures regularly spec them with CF forks? Why do titanium frames usually come with CF forks? Clearly they’re all suffering from confirmation bias
Gimpl wrote:
You may notice, if you look carefully, that bicycle frames and forks and seatposts are different shapes. Frames are two attached triangles. Forks and posts are not. The former is an extremely stable shape, particularly in the vertical plane that we are concerned with here. The latter are, again, not.
As has been explained to you already, in the vertical plane, a bike frame’s material is irrelevant to ride quality because the air suspension contained in the tires will flex long before the double-triangle frame will. As will the fork and the seat post ( and the handlebars, and the saddle itself ). So the material from which those parts are made matters — unlike the frame, which is simply not going to flex under any usage traditionally referred to as “cycling”.
Because you aren’t well-informed enough to know to better, and you assumed that would be the case. Non double-blind testing is worthless — especially when the tester has such hardened preconceived notions.
Interestingly, some of the
Interestingly, some of the more technical German cycling magazines subject frames and wheels to engineering flex tests in jigs…and they do flex, usually at the bottom bracket.
Chris Hayes wrote:
Not before the tires do.
One can do a quick test to confirm. Grab a wheelset. Inflate the tires to a normal pressure — probably 60 to 80 psi for a modern set. Push on the tire with your finger. See it deflect. Now try and deflect your bike’s frame with your hands.
dh700 wrote:
Instructions unclear – does anyone know of a good carbon fibre frame straightener?
Caution: excess use may
Caution: excess use may result in a permanent wave – appreciated by other cyclists but not UCI compliant.
Apart from the obvious (that
Apart from the obvious (that tyres flex), I’m not sure what you’re trying to say – unless you really mean that the comfort of your bike derives 100% from your tyres and their psi?
Chris Hayes wrote:
I am saying that frame material has no bearing on ride quality when using any modern tire at appropriate pressure.
Ride quality is a function first and foremost of tire pressure. Other, lesser factors include the choice of tire, fork, saddle, seat post, and handlebar. Think about it — do you touch the frame of your bike while riding? No, you do not. Your five contact points are all insulated from the frame — in fact, you do not even touch any component that touches the frame, so there are at least two degrees of insulation between your body and your bicycle frame. Does the frame itself cause discomfort? No, it does not, it is an inanimate object. And that object is itself insulated from the cause of any discomfort ( the surface being ridden on ) by two cushions of air. This is the precise genius of the invention of pneumatic tires, and why we no longer travel around on wooden wheels.
What’s the most comfortable suspension-less bike? A fat bike. Why? Obviously, the massive cushions of air at ~10psi, which soak up everything. From there down to the skinniest tires at the highest pressues is a spectrum of declining ride quality, and this is not a coincidence.
But here’s a simple
But here’s a simple experiment for you: you put your foot on one of the pedals, hold the front brake on and put half your weight on the pedal with the crank at about the 1-2 o-clock position. You’ll be able to see how much your frame flexes
Chris Hayes wrote:
You’re one of those Ultegra crank salesmen aren’t you? I’m not falling for that trick again.
Chris Hayes wrote:
How and from where are you measuring this alleged flex?
Because what actually happens when you put half your weight on a pedal is that you compress your tires. So yes, in this test, your bike will get slightly closer to the ground, but not because the frame is bending — it will be because you are compressing your “suspension”, which in the case of a typical road bike, is those two cushions of air inside your tires.
Try the same test with a full-suspension mountain bike if you are not yet sure of the effect.
dh700 wrote:
Completely missing the point and not remotely answering my question.
Gimpl wrote:
Your attempted point was that manufacturers commonly use CF for forks and seat posts. I explained exactly why. Or, more precisely, one of the reasons why. CF is also cheaper than titanium, and lighter than other options. To say nothing of marketing. Manufacturers of many products use materials without any benefit, if customers will pay a premium for them.
Your second attempted point was that you preferred one of your frames over the other — and again, I explained to you why.
I’m afraid you are going to have to try again.
You didn’t explain anything
You didn’t explain anything that was vaild – as mentioned previously – it’s not about frame flex.
Anyway – Just for reference we have tyres here and we spend pounds.
Gimpl wrote:
Really. So you are claiming that it is “invalid” to state that CF is lighter than other frame and fork material options? And it’s “invalid” to point out that bike manufacturers often have completely non-technical motivations for selecting materials?
Or, more to the point, that frames are a different shape than posts and forks.
I’m afraid you are going to have to try again.
So if you’ve finally abandoned the idea of frame flex, what is it now about? Please say ‘vibration damping’. I am dying to hear how and why frame builders use some magical formulations of CF and titanium that are apparently unavailable to fork, post, saddle, stem, and handlebar manufacturers. Also cannot wait to hear about these bottom bracket and headset bearings that transmit every vibration with audiophile fidelity.
srchar wrote:
A significant proportion of which can be accounted for with the groupset so as I stated – your argument is nonsense and also clearly completely misses the point.
But hey – keep going Alu fanboy!
Gimpl wrote:
How much do you think the cost difference was between 105 and Ultegra at the OEM prices of the day?
I don’t think you realise how moronic this sounds.
srchar wrote:
Significantly less moronic than refusing to accept the blindingly obvious.
Simpl wrote:
So blindingly obvious that the comments are full of people who disagree with you.
srchar wrote:
Well – there are a few comments from your fellow alu fan boys but nothing that remotely approaches a worthwhile counter argument – how about (attempting) to answer my question?
So blindingly obvious that
So blindingly obvious that the comments are full of people who disagree with you
I think it’s a futile and thankless task trading sense with a nutter peddling a load of nonsense blended with stupid epithets like ‘alu fanboy’. Apparently, I’m one of these, despite having never owned a single aluminium framed road bike (I do have an oversized tubing Al mountain bike). I’m getting used to this- I’m also designated as a dimwit unable to perceive that disk brakes are really rubbish, having been deceived by marketing into a belief that they’re a lot better (for non-racers) than rim brakes and that those rims that I thought I had worn through from braking were merely an illusion. There are quite a few stupid people on here.
Why is it difficult for you
Why is it difficult for you to accept the real life experience of someone who has tested it out? As I mentioned – I LOVE both bikes and have had them for years.
If you haven’t got any actual experience yourself you are simply peddling a load of nonsense you’ve read on the web.
wtjs wrote:
It’s worse than that – the disc brakes you like are – shudder – MECHANICAL.
My old winter bike had become
My old winter bike had become very painful to ride. Then one day I greased and reinstalled the seatpost and it stopped making a clicking noise riding over bumps. With the noises gone, the bike suddenly felt more comfortable. Lesson learned: some things really are all in the mind.
The research I’ve seen said
The research I’ve seen said it’s all about the tyres (not surprising) and the seat post rather than the frame material. Have you tried a more flexible (carbon?) seat post?
Well predictably I have to
Well predictably I have to disagree, my gravel bike is a relatively cheap and uncomplicated aluminium CX frame and has comfortably seen me over some very long and very rough distances. Granted steel or carbon might have been *more* comfortable but I can’t really fault the comfort of the frame. When I have eventually found its limits it has been at the front end where I’ve had double wrapped handlebars and carbon forks so can’t blame the aluminium frame for that…
Same could be said for both aluminium road bikes and the aluminium MTB.
I might change my tune once (if) my 853 gravel frame turns up, but I just don’t believe the difference between frames is enough to contribute to aching backs etc. Surely that’s the difference between a full suspension MTB and a rigid MTB, not a couple of millimetres compliance in a frame?
Contentious, as of course it
Contentious, as of course it’s meant to be. But to me it’s a lovely piece that seems to come across as being more about a lifelong love of riding bikes than a dislike of one particular frame material.
Riding a Al 7005 frame
Riding a Al 7005 frame combined with a super hard yet private parts friendly saddle and overinflated tires to prevent the forbiden word, I do feel that it is way too harsh.
But it was very cheap, doesn’t rust and has and can take lots of abuse, so for my mostly commuting needs it is just fine.
Alu doesn’t rust.. it
Alu doesn’t rust.. it corrodes.
I hate articles like this. It
I hate articles like this. It just adds to the cycling snobbery that there is within the community.
I, too, think this blanket
I, too, think this blanket condemnation of aluminium frames is nonsense. I have mentioned this before, but I did up my elder daughter’s Uni Halford’s very cheap alu bike for my younger daughter. I found I could ride the bike myself despite the very short stem, because there was a long seat pillar. I found it was little different in ride quality, on the notoriously rubbish North Lancashire roads, to my steel and Merlin titanium bikes. I would now have no hesitation in buying one of these mid-range alu bikes with these new technology formed tubes
10 Reasons Why Aluminium
10 Reasons Why Aluminium Sucks, number 5 will shock you.
All my bikes for the last 20+ years have been aluminium. If money was no object, sure, I’d be buying carbon or titanium. But I don’t think it makes enough of a difference to be worth the extra money.
I’ve been riding road bikes
I’ve been riding road bikes for about 10 years now. I started out on an entry level Specialized Allez (stolen, so I can’t say if I’d still find it comfy a decade on), and still ride a Canyon Ultimate AL and Mason Definition. Maybe I’ve just been lucky in my choices, or maybe I don’t know what I’m missing, but I can ride those over audax distances without too much complaint, and I’ve never felt the need to ‘graduate’ from aluminium to carbon on comfort grounds. My most recent is an all steel Fairlight Faran which does feel plusher, but not really a fair comparison as it’s rolling on 38s. I also very much enjoyed a holiday romance with a titanium Van Nicholas hire bike on Majorca, but what wouldn’t feel good on those roads?
I had a Orbea Scandium bike,
I had a Orbea Scandium bike, that think rode like my tires were made of bricks! Over exaggeration of course, but I had to somehow communicate the difference, and the difference was big, not subtle. It was the worse riding bike I had ever owned or been on. Then the thing developed a crack on the top of the headtube that radiated about an inch from under the headset down, Orbea refused to honor their warranty after only about 9,000 miles and year of owning it; their excuse, fatigue, I guess so because the bike sure did fatigue me!
Yes, frame material does make a difference as much as geometry does. The most comfortable road bike I own is a Titanium Lynskey, it’s like the Cadillac of bikes in the way it rides compared to others. Again some exaggeration to make a point, but the ride quality difference between the Ti bike and my others is again noticable. And the TI bike has stiffer aero wheels then my other bikes, same size tires, even the same exact tires that another of my bikes has on it, same psi too.
I’m not the only person who has felt differences in different frame material.
Never ridden alu or plastic,
Never ridden alu or plastic, only steel.. ’nuff said.
that the producer knows what
that the producer knows what they are doing is more important than the material of the frame. and bike design has long been fooled by the concept stiffer is better. today fatter tyres tend to compensate for this.
also for comfort more important than the frame itself are seat post, stem/handlebars, and above all the front fork. modern bladed straight forks tend to be too stiff regardless of material.
i own a pinarello monviso from 1997, alu frame, steel front curved fork, super stiff atlanta wheels using 23 or 25 mm tyres.
that alu bike is extremely comfortable.
I guess most people know that
I guess most people know that a diamond bike frame is a very stiff construct and does not flex anywhere near as much as a tire, stem, handlebar, seatpost, seat, handlebar tape or the cycling kit you wear. its almost negligable if you ride a “stiff” or a “comfortable” frame because for a centimeter of flex in your tires and seatpost, the frame will do a fraction of a millimeter at best. this does even become less relevant with wieder tires and lower pressures the industry goes these days.
i find this article to be a non informed rant.
however, i can definitely feel a difference in “jaringness” between different bikes, even when putting the same wheels and saddles on them, regardless of frame material. and i am very sure this down to the geometry. for example, even a centimeter less stack high and 1° saddle tilt will move considerably more weight onto your hands and on the bars. of course that will transmit more vibrations into your upper body and might lead to hand and shoulder pain or numbness. you can even try this out on your own bike by changing the stem.
this alone will make more difference than there is between the plushest titanium frame and harshest aluminium one.
It’s not so much about flex,
It’s not so much about flex, Dominic, but the ability of the material to withstand / distribute vibration and resonance…
I agree that you can do with with components too – by mixing a material with a limited ability to deal with vibration (an aluminium frame, for example) with materials better suited (carbon seatpost, bars, stems, etc) and decent wheels / wider, better quality tyres.
Chris Hayes wrote:
This exactly – it’s not about the frame flexing more about dampening the vibration.
That’s what I said in an
That’s what I said in an earlier post
Nope, sorry, disagree. Three
Nope, sorry, disagree. Three bikes I owned were made of Aluminium – a 2005 Specialized Allez, a Cannondale CAADX (a bit older than new, with the double chainring Sora groupset and cable discs as opposed to fancy GRX) and a 2021 Giant Contend SL2. The Allez came with 23mm tires but felt substantially different when I rode it on 25mm tubeless tires. The CAADX felt outstanding when I fitted 38mm WTB tubeless tires on, as did the Giant when I fitted…..you guessed it, supple and slightly wider tubeless tires.
Through this non-experiment I can at least conclude that having a certain frame material is not a death knell when it comes to ride quality – I know there are material differences but I suspect these are rendered all but intangible with better quality tires.
Is the this new helmet debate
Is the this new helmet debate ?
You can move a frame’s
You can move a frame’s vertical/bump feel from “CAAD4” to “Tarmac” with about 10psi in tire pressure. There is no reason for an aluminum frame to be uncomfortable on average surfaces.
I’m with Dominic Schultz on
I’m with Dominic Schultz on this: “i find this article to be a non informed rant.”
My 1983 Gitane (steel) is more compliant than my 2003 CAAD4 (alu), about the same as my CAAD9 (alu), maybe a bit harsher than my 2009 CAAD10 (alu) and certainly less compliant than my 2019 SuperSix Evo HM (carbon).
So, maybe my 39-year old steel bike is more compliant than my 18-year old aluminium bike, but my newer alu bikes are at least as comfortable, and I’ve never found any of them so uncomfortable I couldn’t ride them any further. It’s always my muscles that stop me. And lack of coffee.
As others have noted this
As others have noted, this article is shockingly uninformed — possibly to the point of being satire.
I will personally bet the author $100 that he cannot reliably distinguish a frame’s material in a double-blind test on 30+mm wide tires running their normal pressures. I feel extremely confident he couldn’t do it on any tires, but I’m willing to bet that on fairly typical modern tires, it is impossible to differentiate between frame materials based on riding.
Maybe enough people will kick in a few pounds or whatever currency and road.cc will be motivated to perform such a double-blind test.
I think two things are being
I think two things are being mixed up here; frame flex and absorbtion. Now my secret is I have a two high end aluminium frames (Klein Quantum Race and a Pinarello Prince), two Ti Litespeeds (a Siena 3.2ALV and a Vortex 6.4ALV), a steel Gios, a Colnago C50 and a Factor 02. All have high end carbon bars, stems, and seatposts, and F:zik seats, and interchangeable wheels (3 Campag / 3 Shimano – which is irritatingly suboptimal). My alloy wheels (HED, Kinlin, and OpenPro USTs) are handbuilt, but I have a set of very stiff Shamals and an equally stiff set of (old) Boras, and a set of BlackInc 35s). All the frames are 58cm, apart from the Vortex which is a 57cm, but all are set up to ride as 61cm as I’m 6’4.
Now this is my last word on this as we’re simply not going to agree, but there is a fundamental difference in how these bikes ride and the feedback you get from the roads, with the aluminium bikes giving the most feedback from the roads regardless of the wheelsets used – though they swapping them out makes a difference. I concede that modern aluminium frames using different thickness and different shaped tubes depending on their place in the frame could be more compliant and therefore comfortable, but I don’t have one.
For those who don’t think that frame flex is a thing…there’s google. I’m out on this one.
Chris Hayes wrote:
Reading most of the discussion here, there doesn’t seem to be much flexibility, nor is it particularly absorbing…
Chris Hayes wrote:
Before you drop that mic, you may want to explain how a bicycle frame has anything at all to do with the vibrations that a rider feels through their hands — which is a large part of what most people call “feedback”. Those vibrations originate at the interface between the tire and the surface being ridden on. From there, the path those vibrations follow as they rise up to the rider is: tire, rim, spoke, hub, bearing, axle, blade, crown, steerer, stem, and finally handlebar. Note in particular that the frame is not in that path. That means that in order for a frame to even be relevant to the discussion of cockpit “feedback”, it must efficiently suck those vibrations out of the steerer tube through an interface of grease and bearing-balls.
So go ahead and explain how that occurs.
While you are at it, explain why that phenomenon only occurs in the frame materials, and not in those same materials when they are used to construct wheels, forks, stems, and handlebars — all of which are made in shapes that are more conducive to deflection, when compared to double-triangle frames.
OK, I’m back I’m not saying
OK, I’m back 🙂 I’m not saying that components (inc tyres) don’t have a dampening effect. This is why high end aluminium bikes – like my 1998 Pinarello Prince – come with carbon forks and rear stays, and we swap out the alloy bars and seatposts with carbon equivalents… I think I said in an earlier post that well made wheels have also have a capacity to absorb road vibrations. My Ti and steel bikes have carbon forks – and the Siena has carbon rear-stays.
But if you can accept that carbon components can be ‘dampening’, why can’t you accept that carbon (steel or Ti) frames also possess these qualities? It’s a contradiction – and the whole bike-manufacturing industry seems to disagree with you.
Chris Hayes wrote:
No, it’s not a contradiction. First of all, as I just explained, the frame’s construction is not even relevant to cockpit vibration.
Second, again, virtually all of the other components apart from the frame — especially the tires — will act as suspension long before the frame will, because again, the double-triangle design is extremely stout — as it needs to be to allow a ~20 pound vehicle to carry an order of magnitude more weight.
But it’s not just cockpit
But it’s not just cockpit vibration, vibration also comes through the frame, seatpost, and seat into the lower back too – as many have complained. Look, I accept that frames are stiff and have to be, but badly or cheaply manufactured frames flex – which in the wrong places (BB) not so good, but in the right places (seat stays – because a frame isn’t just a single stiff triangle) can add damping. And certain materials are more prone to resonation than others, though the shape and thickness of the tubes will also work for and against dampening road vibrations (meaning a modern aluminium frame may be more comfortable than an old steel one). That said, as carbon / resin is mouldable, well made carbon frames tend to have the best dampening qualities.
Of course, you can enhance these qualities if you invest in high quality tyres and inflate them appropriately. But if you inflate your (Vittoria) tyres to 130 – 140 psi like one of my mates, you can turn any bike into a teeth rattler…
Chris Hayes wrote:
I am breaking the problem down into sections. I think we can all agree by now that frame material is irrelevant to cockpit vibration, as I’ve explained. That’s by-far the largest area of complaint, and we can cross it off our list.
So, moving on to the other 3 points-of-contact, we can consider the pedals, and the saddle. I personally don’t think I’ve heard anyone complain about NVH experienced through a bicycle’s pedals, so I am skipping that one, at least for now.
Basically all modern saddles are suspended on two thin rails that are constructed from steel, titanium, carbon fiber, or aluminum, and feature a suspended shell of plastic or carbon fiber, topped by some degree of padding. All of which is arranged in the optimal layout for absorbing energy transferred by the post. Speaking of the post, it is also much better at absorption than the triangles supporting it. As with all of the other components discussed so far, any modern saddle is vastly more compliant than any modern frame. So again, at risk of sounding like Tripper Harrison, the frame material just doesn’t matter.
Any frame that flexes as much as you think yours do will be well-nigh unrideable and not last very long, either. Among other issues, a metal frame that flexes as much as you claim is common would work-harden and fracture in hundreds of miles. And for the record, I do own a Niner frame that was exceedingly-poorly manufactured, and that’s exactly how its first life went — until I re-welded it.
Your previous claim that every frame flexes a visible amount with half a rider’s weight on one pedal remains dead-wrong. The weight required to visibly flex a frame exceeds the capacity of the tires and wheels.
The “Drouet” referred to there is Professor Jean-Marc Drouet — an engineer and head of VÉLUS, a research group at the University of Sherbrooke in Canada that has been studying ride quality for over a decade — and that puts all too fine a point on this frame damping nonsense.
The basic frame triangle is
The basic frame triangle is of course not a triangle but a quadrilateral with the head tube providing the short side, the frame is part of the system and therefore affects vibration of the head tube and consequently to some extent that experienced by the hands.
Chris Hayes wrote:
I am less interested in the frame debate than in the question do you have a partner and if so how did you get that lot past him/her?
It’s a collection that pre
It’s a collection that pre-dates the missus by about 15 years apart from the Factor which was a lockdown treat. But she’s a tolerant soul. And I can’t throw stuff away, especially stuff that has Zen – and I’ve done a fair amount of suffering on all of them – especially the Siena.
I bought the Klein in 96, upgraded the groupset and wheels then realised I was only a frame away from a second bike – the Gios….did the same, bought the Litespeed. Got a decent bonus, bought the Colnago and the Vortex. Then got nostalgic and bought the Pinarello off eBay because Jan Ullrich had one! It’ll end up being repainted in Telekom colours and will then become art, which my wife doesn’t mind.
Just like my other half who
Just like my other half who lets me have three in a one-bed flat, she sounds a keeper!
Divorce would lead to a loss
Divorce would lead to a loss of half my bikes, and I won’t get to keep the good ones I can tell you. They’d be on eBay in a flash!
We’re in an apartment too in Canary Wharf, and I keep the one I’m riding in the spare room, the Factor in a bag under the bed in the spare room, and the rest and wheels hanging in what is basically a large storage cupboard. Not ideal. I’m working on leaving the capital and I aspire to a garage!
Chris Hayes wrote:
Divorce meant I could turn the back room of my 3 bed semi into a centrally heated bike workshop. No more shivering in the garage or losing tiny parts in the garden. If I had patio doors it would be a motorbike workshop too!
Modern frame engineers would
Modern frame engineers would laugh and cringe at all the opinions in this comment section. But none of them would ever waste their time reading it. There several scientific papers that refute all the preconceived ideas with facts.
Here’s one: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-020-03410-w
I commend you for posting
I commend you for posting research instead of opinion, but that paper isn’t relevant to the discussion — nor even worth anything. Its authors modelled only the bicycle frame, and ignored components. In other words, they studied nothing, and just restated that larger tubes are stiffer, and that various materials have differing physical properties.
dh700, I disagree. The paper
dh700, I disagree. The paper shows that comfort varies with frame design and material choice so if you were to put the same components of frames made from different material there wold be a difference in rider comfort. If you didnt read as far as the conclusion of the report it says:
“Vertical stiffness of the frame depends mainly on material and cross-sectional dimensions of tubing. Upon applying various materials to the modelled frame and performing linear FEA, considering factors such as frame geometry and material properties, it can be concluded that for better rider comfort, Aluminium 6061 will be a superior choice, in comparison to Medium Carbon Steel and Titanium.”
Surprising isnt it, the research shows that aluminium will be more comfortable than medium carbon steel or titanium.
You’re just wrong,
You’re just wrong, unfortunately. That paper didn’t study riders at all. They only studied frames, which is an insufficient approach to answering this question. Yes, it is true that a frame will eventually flex — every manufactured item will, eventually. The point is that the force required to accomplish that exceeds that which is necessary to deflect all of the other components in the system — and, in point of fact, it usually exceeds the capacity of the rolling stock.
You, and OP, are misapplying this study, which doesn’t actually find anything relevant to the topic. In fact, it cannot possibly do so, because its design neglects everything except the frame.
Sorry, I thought the article
Sorry, I thought the article we were commenting on was about how frame material affects the feel for the rider and the paper looks at how materials affects this. The paper does not pretend to examine the frame and rider so I think that their findings are valid. I look forward to reading your referenced work which shows how putting a rider or other components on a frame affects how the frame feels to the rider
Welsh boy wrote:
This is the problem — you fail to understand the paper in question. It precisely cannot do what you claim, because it is impossible to assess the impact on the rider by looking only at one component — a component which is at least two degrees removed from contact with the rider.
Again, you are failing to understand the problem. The frame by itself cannot effect the rider. This is painfully simple. A rider does not touch the frame, and doesn’t even touch any component which touches the frame. The rider is insulated from the frame by several degrees, so any analysis thereof must consider the entire system, in order to say anything meaningful about the rider’s comfort.
For example, go ride a solid fat bike, with no suspension. You will find the ride extremely cushy, even if it is constructed of heavy steel tubes with a solid steel fork — like mine is. Why? Because other components — namely the tires — swamp the effect of the frame material by miles.
Take a day or so and think on that, before wasting further time here.
So just to be clear, frame
So just to be clear, frame and fork material is irrelevant and (by implication) anyone that has spent money on expensive Ti, stainless, and carbon frames have just wasted their money? Also, by implication, there is no difference in ride quality between my Klein and Pinarello Prince on one hand, and my Colnago and Factor O2 on the other?
Chris Hayes wrote:
Come on, Chris, I think you are smarter than this, and can do better.
First off, read more carefully. Fork material absolutely does matter, as I’ve said. Forks are not made of triangles, and are subject to deflection. Frames and forks are different things, Chris. You should know this, and you are wasting our time here if you don’t.
Second, yes, anyone who bought a frame solely hoping the material used to construct it would effect their ride comfort wasted their money. There are, however, a multitude of other reasons to choose a particular frame material — again, as you should know. So, for example, a person who buys a carbon frame to save weight has not necessarily wasted their money. A person who buys a titanium bike because it will not rust may have similarly not wasted their money. I happen to own two titanium bikes — but I don’t delude myself into thinking they ride any differently than my other bikes with similar tires.
Finally, there may well be differences in the ride quality of those four bikes. But again, those differences are not caused by the material from which the frames are constructed. They are caused by the tires and other components which are mounted to those frames. If you were to mount ~20mm tires at 150psi, and a solid seat, you might be able to reduce the deflection of the entire system enough to discern the frame materials — maybe. Of course, only an idiot would equip their bike in that manner. Good luck with that.
Cushy but very dead, great if
Cushy but very dead, great if you go over a tree route but laborious to cycle on normal road surfaces. With more usual 25 or 28mm tyres the frames compliance becomes very much more important in determining the feel of the bike. The vibration harmonics of even the most basic frames are clearly complex with many degrees of freedom to be allowed for.
You seem like the type of
You seem like the type of person who always right
I just want to add that I’m
I just want to add that I’m going out on my bike later today after work.
All these comments and no one
All these comments and no one’s mentioned Young’s Modulus or Hooke’s Law.
There’s a reason this stuff is always described with flowery language.
Whenever someone uses words like “supple” and can’t tell you how they’ve measured that your spidey sense should be going off.
Frame material as a source of comfort has been debunked years ago. It’s Bike Industry Bullshit.
Just like wheel compliance, it can’t be explained with physics.
If it was anything more than bullshit you’d be able to measure it as part of a full bike set up, just like you can with seatpost deflection or tyre hysteresis.
To feel a vibration it’s got to make its way through the tyres, through the wheel, through the seat post and through the saddle.
So every bit of deflection in those other softer components will need to “bottomed out” before rider feels any flex of the frame or wheels.
Those components may have
Those components may have very different energy modulating properties depending on the frequency of input.
Possibly because Young’s
Possibly because Young’s modulus and Hook’s law are very crude tools for understanding the macroscopic behaviour of complex systems. Put a couple of panniers on my bike loaded up with a weeks camping gear and I can feel plenty of flex in the frame of my bike with definite ill geometric consequences for it’s cornering stability, particularly on descents when braking as the frame distorts under the load! The Material properties and form have to be considered together, A round tube behaves differently to an oval one and again to a complexly shaped one.
Not completely up to speed
Not completely up to speed with all the science but I owned a 2012 Specialized Allez which did seem to feel harsh resulting in aching wrists and lower back despite checking set up and fit, however, I also owned a carbon Specialized SL6 Tarmac which seemed brutally stiff resulting in a very uncomfortable ride indeed, I tried to temper it with Carbon Bars and 28mm Turbo Cottons but nothing seemed to work! needless to say like the Allez, it was sold.
Quite a bit of this
Quite a bit of this discussion below seems to miss out the design opportunities that different materials give.
It’s not so long ago that frames were straight lines. Now they are curves, they use the abilities of the material to flex – and this is where different materials have an impact. So my carbon framed Giant has very thin rear stays which allow the frame to flex while keeping the rider/power connection rigid. My ALU Kinesis tried the same with some wavey bits at the rear but ALU can’t flex too much because of aluminium’s tendency to suffer from fatigue (I know of 2 T2’s that had failures near the BB).
Carbon allows the designer to choose rigidity, flexibility, lightness and strength, selectively through the frame. Aluminium has limits below which you cannot go, as does steel, as does carbon, but in the end fundamentally you can make a carbon frame stronger and lighter than aluminium and both more rigid or more flexible where you want it.
IanMSpencer wrote:
No, it doesn’t. What you describe here is physically impossible — one side of a triangle cannot flex alone.
As previously noted here a few times, you can test the relative deformation at home. Inflate your tires to their normal pressure. Now press on one with your finger, and see it deflect. Now try to bend your frame with your hands.
Any modern frame is stiffer vertically than all of the following components: pneumatic tires, forks, handlebars, seatposts, and saddles. You might be able to defect your frame if you bottom-out your tires, but I doubt you make a habit of that.
If you deflect one side of s
If you deflect one side of s triangle of course the triangle as whole has to deflect with it, but many frames deliberately have the rear stays positioned lower on down tube to increase the deflecting moment and improve the springiness of the frame as a whole.
Robert Hardy wrote:
What if your bike is non-euclidian?
Fortunately I cycle at a
Fortunately I cycle at a scale that does not need me to adjust to the deeper geometry of the Universe.
But lightly hit it with a
But lightly hit it with a tuning hammer and it may well ring, clearly it can deflect! A road surface will provide a spectrum of vibrational frequency to the bicycle being ridden over it, for instance a moderately rough road surface with an 8mm average particle separation would provide a vibrational input centering about 1000Hz if ridden over at about 30km/h. I dont know how the different components of the bike system modulate that input, but I suspect the answer is far from simple to model accurately.
Considering I have 9
Considering I have 9 aluminium framed bikes I think someone is a pussy
Just an old man yapping.
Just an old man yapping.
Sorry i wasted time reading the first half
Having owned steel/aluminium
Having owned steel/aluminium/titanium/carbon framed bikes over many years of riding, my anecdotal evidence suggests that the design of the frame rather than the material used has a bigger influence on comfort. Obviously tyre size/pressure has a big influence along with other components but like for like, the design of the frame makes a bigger difference than material. Many years ago I had a Cannobdale CADD5 which was very stiff/harsh, I now own a Ribble Al framed bike which is considerably more comfortable. I also have a 3T Strada carbon bike which is considerably more comfortable than the Holdsworth Mystique Carbon gravel bike I used to own, even though it had 32mm tyres on compared to 28’s on the 3T. The main difference I believe is the dropped seat stays both the 3T and Ribble have which the others didn’t.
A lot of the mystique of
A lot of the mystique of steel frame suppleness came from the traditional design of the forks. My steel framed but carbon forked bike is very stiff but lacks the lovely road imperfection absorbance that the bikes of my early adulthood had, courtesy of the traditional butted fork blades with their springing upturn just before the wheel mount.
Having ridden a few mid
Having ridden a few mid-market aluminum bikes over the last ten years, I have to say they were darned nice. With carbon forks, they give up nothing to low- or mid-level carbon except a few grams grams. And I can lose more that that by eating a little more wisely.
canyon ultimate al – best Alu
canyon ultimate al – best Alu frame ever
Better than a Colnago Dream
Better than a Colnago Dream (with fancy paint job)?
Amusing but nonsense. On a
Amusing but nonsense. On a fat tired gravel bike, the frame material is the problem? No it isn’t. Nearly all compliance and vibration damping is down to the tyres.
There is barely and difference between riding a steel or aluminium frame with fat tyres. I’m not just saying this, there is science that backs it up.
ETA: I prefer steel but for other reasons, so no bias here.
“Nearly all compliance and
“Nearly all compliance and vibration damping is down to the tyres.”
As anyone who has ridden a cross bike with road tyres will know.
I think looking at the frame
I think looking at the frame pictured it is immediately obvious why it is a harsh ride, very steep angled rear stays directly to the short seat post and a steep angled virtually straight fork and consequent short wheel base, no doubt an agile bike, but not one designed with any concession to comfort on a long ride. Compare it with a classic touring bike frame, longer wheel base, and easier angles on fork and rear stays, much more room for the frame components to contribute to modulating vibrational loads.