# Did the pro peloton ever use aluminum bikes?



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

This isn't supposed to be a stupid question, but I recently picked up a copy of Lance Armstrong's _Portraits of a Champion_ from a used book store. It's an album of photos of him from 1992 to 2005. I've looked at the photos over and over - and I basically see pics of him (and riders around him) on steel bikes in the early 90s, then on carbon fiber bikes in the late 90s and onwards. At least Armstrong's bikes seemed to go that way. It may be I mis-identified the bikes of the riders around him (not always very clear) but I can't say I'm sure I saw any aluminum bikes.

Anyways - is this observation correct? And if so, why no love for aluminum?


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Some pro teams used aluminum bikes for certain races. These were custom made bikes that then had the team's sponsoring bike manufacturer's label slapped on them. I know that Klein made a few bikes for the Once team a long time ago but do not know in what races they were used.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

For a while, aluminum frames were the go-to. Vitus had aluminum race frames out before anyone had carbon fiber, IIRC. Since the first carbon fiber bikes came out in the '80s, though, I'm not surprised you're not seeing a ton of aluminum.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

In Lance's early career with Motorola they were on Merckx Titanium frames (by Litespeed). In the mid to late '90's these were painted and you could not tell from steel by looking. It's rumoured that other teams ran Litespeeds painted to look like their steel frame sponsors.

View attachment 288887


In the '00's Saeco for one were running Cannondale CAAD's.









Also in the early '00's Lotto Domo were running Merckx SC's which are Al alloy.

View attachment 288889


Domo won P-R in 2001-2 on them. Richard Virenque rode them in the 2002 Tour.

Mine


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

CSC used Cervelo Soloists back in the day.

From 2005.









Julian Dean's alu Soloist.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

You obviously missed one of the great moments in real-time bicycle marketing, when Mario Cipollini, leading the Tour de France and dressed in yellow from head to toe, riding a matching yellow fat-tubed bike, turned to the moto camera riding beside him and did an impromptu commercial. "Eets a Cannondale; eet'sa the best-a bike!" With the appropriate Italian hand gestures. Eet was a beautiful-a thing, I tell you.


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

bikerjulio said:


> In Lance's early career with Motorola they were on Merckx Titanium frames (by Litespeed). In the mid to late '90's these were painted and you could not tell from steel by looking.


Interesting. I know exactly what Merckx bike you're talking about as he's on it in pretty much all his early 90s photos. Didn't realize it was titanium.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

armstrong said:


> Interesting. I know exactly what Merckx bike you're talking about as he's on it in pretty much all his early 90s photos. Didn't realize it was titanium.


The first year or 2 of USPS Trek didn't have any TT frames so they rode Litespeed Ti TT frames w/ the same paint job as the carbon road frames.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

armstrong said:


> Interesting. I know exactly what Merckx bike you're talking about as he's on it in pretty much all his early 90s photos. Didn't realize it was titanium.


 It isn't. All the Merckx bikes were lugged steel. It was when Motorola started riding Caloi bikes that they started using rebadged litespeeds.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

brianmcg said:


> It isn't. All the Merckx bikes were lugged steel. It was when Motorola started riding Caloi bikes that they started using rebadged litespeeds.


Wrong. Clearly you have never heard of the Merckx AX. 

Also ignoring my Merckx SC - Scandium alloy. 

Now, you have forced me to show mine  (frame '95, rest updated):

View attachment 288916










1997 Eddy Merckx Titanium AX - BikePedia

MSRP $2,799 in 1997. That sounds like about $6k today.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> For a while, aluminum frames were the go-to. Vitus had aluminum race frames out before anyone had carbon fiber, IIRC. Since the first carbon fiber bikes came out in the '80s, though, I'm not surprised you're not seeing a ton of aluminum.


Aluminum frames were short-lived in the pro peloton. There were probably lots that I don't remember but the most famous had to be Vitus 979 that Sean Kelly rode to many victories. And the Vitus got re-labeled for a few other teams too. As did Alan.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

bikerjulio said:


> Wrong. Clearly you have never heard of the Merckx AX.
> 
> Also ignoring my Merckx SC - Scandium alloy.
> 
> ...


 That is a nice bike. But I am still correct. The Motorola team did not ride any titanium Merckx bikes. Mr. Merckx himself was insistent that Motorola ride on his lugged steel frames. Also Lance was no longer on Motorola in 1997.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

brianmcg said:


> That is a nice bike. But I am still correct. The Motorola team did not ride any titanium Merckx bikes. Mr. Merckx himself was insistent that Motorola ride on his lugged steel frames. Also Lance was no longer on Motorola in 1997.


We need some nice detailed photos, since I have to admit I didn't talk to Eddy about this.

edit.

so I have to admit I cannot find any pictures to illustrate a Ti Motorola. Damn.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

bikerjulio said:


> We need some nice detailed photos, since I have to admit I didn't talk to Eddy about this.


 You'll just have to take my word for it. But if you find a titanium frame in Motorola colors and "Merckx" on the downtube I'll eat my shirt.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Didn't the Caloi bikes say CALOI in big letters and "by Merckx" in really small letters on the white downtube panel?


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

K - 2 related questions.

1. For frames, is it "only" about the weight or is there more to selecting a frame? i.e. carbon vs TI vs alu vs steel. I've read about damping qualities etc - but given that people seem to largely select the lighter frame whenever given the choice, is it also that lighter frames (coincidentally or incidentally) are also the ones that damp vibration better?

2. For parts... is it "only" about the weight as well? I spoke to some guy who collects/builds bikes and he was doing a high-end carbon Cervelo build. He was building it with standard cheap aluminum alloy handlebars (as opposed to a carbon handlebar). His reasoning was that (1) the alloy one cost about 1/10 the cost, (2) the carbon one would basically have to be immediately replaced if it was in a crash, and (3) given that they were basically close to the same weight anyways, there was really no reason to go for a carbon handlebar given these three points. Agree, or is there something "better" about having a handlebar (and other things like seat post) made of carbon fiber? Is there any point in having bits and pieces of derailleurs made of carbon fiber, or is that just marketing gone nuts?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

If you pay more attention to the thousands of posts on this forum you'd know you've already answered your own questions. 

The answer being: It depends.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

The Festina team rode aluminum Specialized bikes.


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

brianmcg said:


> You'll just have to take my word for it. But if you find a titanium frame in Motorola colors and "Merckx" on the downtube I'll eat my shirt.




Lance won the 1993 Worlds in Norway riding a Ti Litespeed, rebadged Merckx. Go to youtube for video or google for pics. As a side note, Merckx himself set the hour record on a frame made from.......titanium.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

brianmcg said:


> > You'll just have to take my word for it. But if you find a titanium frame in Motorola colors and "Merckx" on the downtube I'll eat my shirt.
> 
> 
> Possibly it's shirt eating time
> ...


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

That's some good detective work. Before I break out the ketchup I'd like some confirmation. I've never heard of it before.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

brianmcg said:


> That's some good detective work. Before I break out the ketchup I'd like some confirmation. I've never heard of it before.


Here's another example:

Steel









And what appears to be another Titanium Merckx Motorola!























looks like a Columbus sticker too, which was a little sneaky.

but spot the similarity to this:









rather than this:









give in yet??


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

For 10 years, 1995 to 2005, aluminium was the main frame material in the pro peloton. Bianchi, Pinarello, GIOS, Fausto Coppi, Cyfac painted something else, Colnago, Carrera etc.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

brianmcg said:


> You'll just have to take my word for it. But if you find a titanium frame in Motorola colors and "Merckx" on the downtube I'll eat my shirt.





> That's some good detective work. Before I break out the ketchup I'd like some confirmation. I've never heard of it before.


Sometimes you have to man up and admit you are wrong. How about it?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

How could I forget the original Giant TCR? Now there's a game changer!










It's aluminium, the important bit is the geometry. Makes Lance's Trek look somewhat dated, doesn't it?
(That Once-Deutsche Bank kit Olano is sporting is an absolute classic btw.)


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

kbwh said:


> How could I forget the original Giant TCR? Now there's a game changer!


Was this the first frame to introduce compact geometry?


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

In the pro peloton at least. Here's my source:
inrng : the ancestor of your bike
In the comments section it is mentioned that Bontrager had a compact road frame as early as 1994, five years before Once rode Giants.


----------



## Fignon's Barber (Mar 2, 2004)

kbwh said:


> For 10 years, 1995 to 2005, aluminium was the main frame material in the pro peloton. Bianchi, Pinarello, GIOS, Fausto Coppi, Cyfac painted something else, Colnago, Carrera etc.


yes. I was reading that at one early 2000's Tour, Francis Quillon (Cyfac) had built 50% of the frames on the starting line.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

That's one way to level the equipment usage.

Sort of like all the pro track racers using the same wheelset...


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

AndrwSwitch said:


> That's one way to level the equipment usage.
> 
> Sort of like all the pro track racers using the same wheelset...


Pretty much. There is a small variety of frames used at the World Cup track level, mainly Look, BH, and the bikes made for Britain and Germany. A few racers that aren't full-time national team members will use their personal bikes, some of which are custom. 
In my experience, 95% of the wheels raced at world cups are Mavic Comete disc and Io fronts. I guess when your federation has that much money invested in wheels, they hang on to them forever.


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

kbwh said:


> In the pro peloton at least. Here's my source:
> inrng : the ancestor of your bike
> In the comments section it is mentioned that Bontrager had a compact road frame as early as 1994, five years before Once rode Giants.


Fascinating article. 

So it's good to see that Giant was actually responsible for some significant developments in the bike industry, and not simply be the "copycat" company (ie. everything from Schwinn, I'm getting this history from Wiki).


----------



## armstrong (Jul 9, 2013)

kbwh said:


> How could I forget the original Giant TCR? Now there's a game changer!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just curious. My understanding is that manufacturers benefit from marketing compact geo frames because it allows them to build frames in fewer sizes (e.g. S, M, L, XL), and that specific fits can be tailored to specific riders by varying seat post height and stem length (and other things like stem height, seat set back). All this, in comparison to fitting a traditional frame made at 2 cm intervals and finding the right "size". 

But looking at this photo - consider Lance's bike vs. the other rider's bike. The other rider's bike was presumably made in (say) 4 sizes, and has had the appropriate fixes to make it fit the rider. But why can't Lance's bike be fit the same way? I mean, other than the (1) seat post length, seat stay lengths, and the top tube length, and (2) the angle at which these four tubes meet each other, isn't the rest of the bike basically the same as a compact bike? Couldn't Lance's bike also be built in "just" 4 sizes and simply have an appropriately long seat post and stem used? Like, I realize the top tube will be at a different height depending on the size of frame you choose, but can't all the points of contact (seat, handlebars, pedals) be built to fit "most" riders using a trad bike with "only" 4 available sizes, the way compact bikes are fit? Like, I don't see why compact geo allows for so much fix flexibility that a trad bike does not. If you take Lance's bike, cut the seat tube down by 2 cm, slope the top tube and seat stays accordingly, and lengthen the seat post 2 cm so that the seat stays in the same position, isn't that the same fit? And if it is, then why can compact geo satisfy in 4 sizes, but trad needs 10 (or whatever) sizes to do the same thing?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Can't say I've seen a reduction in the number of sizes companies offer in practice. So your objection is well-founded.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

armstrong said:


> Just curious. My understanding is that manufacturers benefit from marketing compact geo frames because it allows them to build frames in fewer sizes (e.g. S, M, L, XL), and that specific fits can be tailored to specific riders by varying seat post height and stem length (and other things like stem height, seat set back). All this, in comparison to fitting a traditional frame made at 2 cm intervals and finding the right "size".
> 
> But looking at this photo - consider Lance's bike vs. the other rider's bike. The other rider's bike was presumably made in (say) 4 sizes, and has had the appropriate fixes to make it fit the rider. But why can't Lance's bike be fit the same way? I mean, other than the (1) seat post length, seat stay lengths, and the top tube length, and (2) the angle at which these four tubes meet each other, isn't the rest of the bike basically the same as a compact bike? Couldn't Lance's bike also be built in "just" 4 sizes and simply have an appropriately long seat post and stem used? Like, I realize the top tube will be at a different height depending on the size of frame you choose, but can't all the points of contact (seat, handlebars, pedals) be built to fit "most" riders using a trad bike with "only" 4 available sizes, the way compact bikes are fit? Like, I don't see why compact geo allows for so much fix flexibility that a trad bike does not. If you take Lance's bike, cut the seat tube down by 2 cm, slope the top tube and seat stays accordingly, and lengthen the seat post 2 cm so that the seat stays in the same position, isn't that the same fit? And if it is, then why can compact geo satisfy in 4 sizes, but trad needs 10 (or whatever) sizes to do the same thing?


Two things... No matter what we call a certain bikes geometry, front/ rear (rider) weight distribution can't be ignored, so "getting fit right" doesn't just mean getting the contact points right. The rider also has to be positioned correctly, f/r on the frame.

Second, one (and probably the only) benefit of compact geo is that (because of the sloping TT) it allows a rider to size up one size in case they're proportioned shorter legs/ longer torso and/ or they want a slightly taller HT. 

Any manufacturer that offers less frame size choices is doing so for cost considerations, nothing else.


----------

