Aluminum Framed Bikes Coming Back?

[42x16ss]

44mm head tubes are an acquired taste, like the fact they're supported by King though.

Fat headtubes like that are an acquired taste for sure but IMO they make for a very stable handling bike at speed. My old Cannondale System Six had a similar sized headtube and it was the best descending bike I've ever ridden, period. The handling was so predictable you could throw it around like an escaped mental patient

 

[ElChingon]

the other day i was discussing carbon with a fellow mechanical engineer and we came to the conclusion that the bike market for carbon is pathetic.

they come with this ad campaigns about "special carbon this and special carbon that" which improves stiffness and reduces weight and whatever and its all an huge amount of bull**** as all those brands use the same carbon with pretty much the same "glues" and baking processes. It is beyond me how some people actually think that the carbon on the maclaren venge is any different then the one on the normal venge, or that the carbon on the ferrari colnago C59 is any different then the one on a normal c59.

big brands are obsessed with frame weight because that is the bets excuse to justify the low amount of layers they use when building a frame, ensuring this way that it will brake more easily and have a much shorter life spam. there is no justification other then "flawed" product design to justify the amount of broken/cracked frames being reported. At the speeds people cycle, even the pros, and the power they produce carbon should not crack when crashed. Unless ofc you are hit by a car or something like that

Are you sure you were talking with Engineer's? Or maybe none of them do cost analysis. True engineer's design to specification, remember?

Saying all carbon is the same is really reaching for the straws that fell out of the hay bales. I suggest you inquire with anyone you may know who is involved with any kind of carbon production, you'll learn a thing or two if not a million things, if you are truly interested on the subject.

 

[alitogata]

Are you sure you were talking with Engineer's? Or maybe none of them do cost analysis. True engineer's design to specification, remember?

Saying all carbon is the same is really reaching for the straws that fell out of the hay bales. I suggest you inquire with anyone you may know who is involved with any kind of carbon production, you'll learn a thing or two if not a million things, if you are truly interested on the subject.

Ok then.. if Parrulo is that wrong and in ignorance, why don't you tell us the differences between two supposed different types of carbon material?
Do carbons have alloys as metals have, or it is the glue or the resins that will do the carbon fabric stiffer?

The only difference between an expensive carbon frame and a not so expensive one, relies on the geometry and the technical/safety control after the frame is build. However, as we have seen a million times, both expensive and cheap carbon frames have the same possibilities to fail and brake in pieces in case of an impact, something that I personally find it unacceptable, especially for race use, ( where impacts, crashes etc are in the ..agenda).

 

[B_Ugli]

Its getting pretty shocking the price of frames these days. When I stopped racing competitively in 2001 the Columbus Genius steel tubed bike I had was £500 and the Ultegra group + finishing kit came to probably under £1500. That was considered pretty top end kit back then. The last frame I bought was a specialized tarmac in 2007 which was £1200. The same frame today is £2500!

In the UK, cycling has got so poplular so quickly that new riders are fooled into thinking that they cannot get enjoyment and performance from their bike without spending stupid money on a carbon frame. In a lot of cases it is finished off with shimano tiagra cheap tyres, bars and saddle. Also the bikes are poorly set up with saddle tips pointing at the floor stems 2 cm long and lever hoods reaching for the sky.

Whats worse is that cycling journos clearly have no idea about cycling history or the benefits of certain frame materials. Read the "would I buy section of this review". What does the reviewer think people rode in the 80's and 90's? Wood frames?

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/5923/cycling/genesis-equilibrium-review/

I was heartened to see this post on a forum recently though. Clearly this guy has decided to put together a reasonably priced bike on a budget which looks okay, and doesnt break the bank. It can be done people!

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/vie...9842&p=18085434&hilit=Kinesis+KR510#p18085434

What would you rather have a cheap frame set up well with decent finishing kit; or
An expensive frame set up bad with cheap wheels and finishing kit.

I know what I would prefer to ride!

 

[frenchfry]

Katusha used aluminium Canyon's in two races last year. Probably more comfortable than their bone shaking carbon frames too.

When I got my carbon Canyon last year to replace my aluminium bike I was concerned that the stiffness of the carbon would not help my sensitive back.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the ride was noticably more comfortable, and my back pain has almost disappeared. At first it almost felt like the tires were underinflated as the small bumps were absorbed without little shocks going up my back.

My aluminium frame is made by a guy in St Etienne (I forget his name) who used to make frames for the top pros (rebranded of course) so I assume it is a decent one. The wheelset could also explain some of the difference, an upgrade from Kysrium Elite to Kysrium SLR.

 

[Parrot23]

What's the weight diff. between aluminum and carbon? Is carbon lighter for the same tensile strength, so it takes less material to build a carbon bike? Is aluminum a heavier bike, or not? I just don't know. Anyone?

I must have had one of the earlier Trek carbon bikes in the mid 90s and it had aluminum forks, whereas now it seems that the aluminum bikes are using carbon forks to smooth the ride. Is that true? It's as though the early carbon builders didn't trust carbon's strength in the critical fork area. Now they do.

But can be risky? I remember that Christian Van Velde's terrible Giro crash a few years ago was rumoured to be from a breaking carbon fork on his Felt. Seemed all very hush, hush. Garmin's no longer riding Felts.

Just wondering if I could go with a custom-fit aluminum bike with carbon forks. My feeling is the tradeoff might be good: cheaper frame (but custom fit ), still comfortable ride, and can use the "saved" money on higher end components.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

44mm head tubes are an acquired taste, like the fact they're supported by King though.

Also like the idea that King has 2 lower cups, one for tapered forks and one for not, so you can put either on a 44mm headtube. I think on a road frame, it is in the 'seat mast' category, mostly for marketing, like a BB30 hub shell.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

big brands are obsessed with frame weight because that is the bets excuse to justify the low amount of layers they use when building a frame, ensuring this way that it will brake more easily and have a much shorter life spam. there is no justification other then "flawed" product design to justify the amount of broken/cracked frames being reported. At the speeds people cycle, even the pros, and the power they produce carbon should not crack when crashed. Unless ofc you are hit by a car or something like that

I agree with your previous paragraphs, of course there is much marketing (marketing=BS) to try and persuade people away from a rival's product and onto their own.

Not sure about the weight thing though. I don't think it is anything to do with creating a shorter lifespan. I think it is purely because many consumers mistakenly believe that lighter=better. It's a selling point. It is interesting that the people that really produce the best frames out there (Look and Time) don't go down the path of chasing the lowest frame weights. They know that ride qualities and power transfer are more important.

On the subject of frame breakages, do you have some sort of source for believing that there is an issue with current frames breaking prematurely? I'm not accusing you of lying, it is just that it is news to me and I am, shall we say, usually very well informed about this kind of thing.

I think with race frames, the general idea is to make them obsolete through the introduction of new innovations and styles (ISP, different BB standards, tapered headtubes, pencil thin seat stays etc etc etc etc....). People will soon convince themselves that they need the latest frame because they believe it will be faster. The frame manufacturers know this. They don't have to build in a fatigue life.

 

[Benotti69]

What's the weight diff. between aluminum and carbon? Is carbon lighter for the same tensile strength, so it takes less material to build a carbon bike? Is aluminum a heavier bike, or not? I just don't know. Anyone?

I must have had one of the earlier Trek carbon bikes in the mid 90s and it had aluminum forks, whereas now it seems that the aluminum bikes are using carbon forks to smooth the ride. Is that true? It's as though the early carbon builders didn't trust carbon's strength in the critical fork area. Now they do.

But can be risky? I remember that Christian Van Velde's terrible Giro crash a few years ago was rumoured to be from a breaking carbon fork on his Felt. Seemed all very hush, hush. Garmin's no longer riding Felts.

Just wondering if I could go with a custom-fit aluminum bike with carbon forks. My feeling is the tradeoff might be good: cheaper frame (but custom fit ), still comfortable ride, and can use the "saved" money on higher end components.

Check out Ballans BMC with broken forks from his recent crash.

TI forks.

 

[El Oso]

What's the weight diff. between aluminum and carbon? Is carbon lighter for the same tensile strength, so it takes less material to build a carbon bike? Is aluminum a heavier bike, or not? I just don't know. Anyone?

You can still make a light aluminum and could make one lighter than certain carbon frames, but I would imagine that a high end carbon would be lighter than a high end aluminum, but that is just a hunch. Of course there are the risks you mentioned.

Just wondering if I could go with a custom-fit aluminum bike with carbon forks. My feeling is the tradeoff might be good: cheaper frame (but custom fit ), still comfortable ride, and can use the "saved" money on higher end components.

I found that a good vibration dampening seatpost really helps. Not sure how much compared for full carbon frame, but it can certainly help. My bike (2003 Specialized Allez) came with the Specialized Zertz seatpost which did a great job - I was fine riding a double century on chip and seal roads. Due to my mechanical ineptitude, I snapped the carbon and had to switch to an Alpha Q, and I can certainly feel the difference with regards to jarring on a long ride.

 

[DirtyWorks]

On the subject of frame breakages, do you have some sort of source for believing that there is an issue with current frames breaking prematurely? I'm not accusing you of lying, it is just that it is news to me and I am, shall we say, usually very well informed about this kind of thing.

And why would you be particularly well-informed?

As to the post you replied to, I'd be wary of the generalities made unless the poster comes back with some brand-level credentials.

Carbon is a superior material across many factors to alloys. If only it wouldn't suddenly and spectacularly fail.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

And why would you be particularly well-informed?

Work contacts in Taiwan

As to the post you replied to, I'd be wary of the generalities made unless the poster comes back with some brand-level credentials.

Carbon is a superior material across many factors to alloys. If only it wouldn't suddenly and spectacularly fail.

What like aluminium, you mean?

Carbon fibre doesn't have a fatigue life, unlike aluminium. If you have a bit of spare cash you don't need, buy a decent CF (I recommend Look or Time ) and try smashing it up with a hammer.

You'll be quite surprised

 

[Volderke]

1. A carbon frame can be made much lighter with greater stiffness and even better vibration dampening than any alu frame (think of the top models in the pro peloton of Cervelo-Cannondale-Scott-Specialized-Canyon-...all weighing around 900g or lighter for the frame) . In practice, much of the high-end carbon frames are much better than anything out of alu, even top end alu (including scandium alloys).
2. top end alu has still the benefit of being cheap and very race-worthy (light, less impact sensitive, stiff), but alu frames are not meant to be comfortable. maybe they were in the early days when you had those noodly Alan frames, but not anymore. Caad 10 and Alu Canyons are two examples of this evolution. Both are around 1300-1400g for the frame.
3. If you want comfort and do not care about fashion, steel and titanium are the best options. Steel is still real if comfort is your preference, and I feel that it has more potential for a come-back into racing. See also some of the Rapha guys who choose the steel version over carbon for criteriums: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/rapha-condor-jlt-steel-and-carbon-racing-bikes-gallery
I do not need to mention that Alessandro Ballan rode to the podium in 2006 on a steel Wilier in Paris-Roubaix: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/apr06/roubaix06/?id=/tech/2006/features/roubaix_bikes1

 

[Brian Butterworth]

I think the lighter you go with aluminium the more you are asking for trouble. Remember those lovely Bianchi EV frames from about 12-15 years ago? 70% failure rate in under 5 years.

I don't think light carbon has had this issue. Problems can occur with flexing, especially with powerful riders. You'd be surprised at how sturdy some of the pro rigs can be compared to consumer models.

 

[simo1733]

I think the lighter you go with aluminium the more you are asking for trouble. Remember those lovely Bianchi EV frames from about 12-15 years ago? 70% failure rate in under 5 years.

I don't think light carbon has had this issue. Problems can occur with flexing, especially with powerful riders. You'd be surprised at how sturdy some of the pro rigs can be compared to consumer models.

I had a Scandium Ciocc that cracked at the top of the downtube.Lovely bije until it failed.

 

[Brian Butterworth]

Was that a Challenger, with CF rear stays?

Those super light scandium frames were amazing....but, racing only. Not for training as they simply didn't have a long life. Cracks in BB, dropouts, and headtube/downtube interface were very common.

In itself, you can build an aluminium frame that will last as long as the designer pays close attention to things like stress corrosion, elongation and displacement.

 

[42x16ss]

Indeed. Cannondale showed this was possible with various CAAD frames over the years. Take good care of them and they last for years, especially the 9's.

 

[hfer07]

Aluminum Frames making a big come back??

I have recently read several articles about the big bicycle companies returning once more to aluminum, as a material for frames "above" the entry level, due to better construction methods/Technics to mold it with better shapes while improving performance in such way,that are surpassing the carbon fiber ones.

We're aware of Cannondale Cadd10, Colnago AC-R as great Aluminum bikes, but now that Specialized & Giant have unveiled their new Aluminium designs to the main street, it seems to me the market is shifting towards new material alternatives apart from carbon, as the manufacturers have realized the necessity to compensate for the excessive hype imposed to the buyers with that material, and with the help of new metal technologies for welding & tube molding/shaping, it looks like we're looking at a renaissance of the Aluminum frame...

Please opine....

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Whoooaaa, dewd! Deja vu!

 

[hfer07]

Whoooaaa, dewd! Deja vu!

sh!t-I wasn't aware of the existing thread

Mods-feel free to close it at your discretion.

 

[Netserk]

 

[DirtyWorks]

I have recently read several articles about the big bicycle companies returning once more to aluminum, as a material for frames "above" the entry level, due to better construction methods/Technics to mold it with better shapes while improving performance in such way,that are surpassing the carbon carbon fiber.

They are cheaper. More many more vendors to grind pennies off the vendors aluminum alloy bikes. It's a business after all.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Canyon Ultimate AL series is a pretty light frame. Not near their 790g CF slx though, but definitely worth a mention. The Ultimate AL frames have been used for cobbled classics before also: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/tech-gallery-paris-roubaix-bike-preview/216876

 

[Michele]

They are cheaper. More many more vendors to grind pennies off the vendors aluminum alloy bikes. It's a business after all.

Correct.
I remember talking to some asian frame producers at an edition of Eurobike some years ago and a decent 7000 series hydroformed alu frame would be something like 50-80usd if I remember correctly.

 

[2beeDammed]

been thinking about a new frame lately and are seriously considering aluminium for the first time in a long time. It seems monocoque carbon frames are strong in the directions the force is intended to be applied, but are prone to fail/break if force is applied any other way. An example I have seen twice is top tubes breaking in crashes probably due to pressure from the thigh during a fall. I have been riding a lugged carbon frame for nearly ten years now and crashed it plenty of times with no structural problems. It seems they just built them more robust back then. So it worries me to spend several thousand dollars on a frame that may not make it past it's first crash. So back to my original does anyone know anything about these frames http://www.gaulzetticicli.com/corsa/ ? Good or bad ?