# aluminum vs CrMo feeling



## isaak (Oct 17, 2010)

Question to oldtimers.
If you used to ride before CrMo frame and switched later to aluminum frame with carbon fork and carbon seat post is there much difference in ride feeling.
Is aluminum frame with carbon fork and post still harsher ride then CrMo frame, do you feel more vibration on aluminum frame ?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

carbon post, no difference. frame? depends...they can be a little (very little) stiffer riding, but nothing you can't overcome w/ a little lower psi. i went from a custom True Temper OX Platinum frame, w/ stiff aero seat stays, to the same frame w/ a curved carbon mono-stay unit installed, to an aluminum Bianchi. the Bianchi was stiffer at the bb and up front. honestly, couldn't tell much difference in ride quality, but i ride sorta low pressure.


----------



## philoanna (Dec 2, 2007)

I am not riding high end stuff, but I like the feel of my salsa Casseroll (Steel) over my Specialized Tricross (Alu) The bumps seem to stick around a little longer on the Tricross compatred to the Casseroll. The tricross is sporting 47mm tires right now and my SS Casseroll has 32's and my geared Casseroll has 28's.
I have become a big fan of the ride quality of steel.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

I have two OX bikes and love te ride. Not as stiff as my old Cannondale was but a way better ride in my opinion. 
Remember though. These are different bikes and my wants in a frame have changed. I have gone to running the fattest tires that will fit my road bikes with great results. I like to spend 6 hours on my bike and can do it without feeling beat. 
Heck my new ride was built to fit a 35 and i run them.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Modern aluminum frames are generally stiffer than steel, and will tend to transmit bumps more sharply and road buzz with less dampening.

Steel, being generally more springy (since steel is a springier material then aluminum, so steel frames don't need to be as stiff for efficiency), tends to dampen a lot more of that road stuff.

Of course, you can manipulate steel, carbon or Ti to be as harsh and stiff as aluminum. But it is almost impossible to get aluminum to have that efficient springyness of the other materials - when almuninum flexes there is more energy lost than transmitted in the other materials. That's why aluminum bikes are either unhelpfully flexy or super stiff - not much middle ground.

Of course, a stiff aluminum frame mated to the right tires, bar tape, saddle, etc. can be reasonably comfortable since other things can do the dampening instead of the frame.


----------



## isaak (Oct 17, 2010)

if carbon seat posts dont make any difference does carbon seat stays, like on Speciallized, provide 'softer" ride or also a sales gimmic ?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

isaak said:


> if carbon seat posts dont make any difference does carbon seat stays, like on Speciallized, provide 'softer" ride or also a sales gimmic ?


Sure, they can, anyway. They won't stop the road buzz coming from chainstays up the seat tube or through the bar, but the most direct connection from seat to rear wheel are the stays.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

I have a 2004 aluminum Specialized Rubaix with carbon forks, seat stays, seat post, all with Zertz inserts. It's harsher than my all Ti and carbon bikes. Although you can generalize about the ride qualities of different frame materials, you really need to try and compare the specific bikes in question.


----------



## CoLiKe20 (Jan 30, 2006)

I had a Cannondale Caad3 for 3 years. Then I got a Litespeed Ghisallo. For the first couple of weeks of riding the Litespeed, I kept checking the rear tires every time I go over a bump b/c it felt like I had a flat. Eventually, my mind accepted that the Ti frame is so forgiving compared to the Al frame.
It was eye opening.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I rode steel bikes for 20 years before I bought my 1st aluminum bike. It was a beautiful looking bike and I hated it. I figured it was just that particular brand & model so I bought a different brand with longer chain stays and more relaxed geometry that the crit frames that were popular then. I hated that one, too. I always had saddle sores, always had numb hands even after I fitted larger tires at reduced pressures, That helped but not a lot. The aluminum frames handled great but they felt dead. There was very, very little spring to them. When starting out from 4-5 mph and standing on it, it felt like I was pushing on a brick. It accelerated but just didn't feel good. I've never ridden a mixed material bike, e.g., alu frame with CF stays, post, forks, so I can't comment on them. I will say if the Lord is willing I will never own another aluminum framed bicycle. Some riders love theirs and this isn't meant to be a slam against them. This is just IME/IMO.


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

It's been my experience that material matters less than quality and thoughtfulness of the tube choices and construction.

I own a "good" aluminum bike, a "good" titanium bike, and a "good" steel bike. All three ride nice and I'm happy with any one of them in town, on club rides, or on centuries. 

I also own a "cheap" aluminum bike It rides like the reputation of aluminum. It's also my heaviest bike.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

What Bruce said. And also, CF beats them all.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*suggestion*



isaak said:


> Question to oldtimers.
> If you used to ride before CrMo frame and switched later to aluminum frame with carbon fork and carbon seat post is there much difference in ride feeling.
> Is aluminum frame with carbon fork and post still harsher ride then CrMo frame, do you feel more vibration on aluminum frame ?


If you are interested in finding a new bike then I would just go try some bikes at the shop and be agnostic about material. Making generalizations about material is somewhat irrelevant when you are looking at specific bikes. I will say that the carbon stays on Al bikes phase somewhat a gimmick (IMO) and that with the plethora of low cost carbon frames what’s the point anyway. FWIW its worth I have 3 steel bikes and one CF bike. The CF bike is by far the stiffest but the other three cover a wide range from quite compliant to stiff.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

cyclesport45 said:


> What Bruce said. And also, CF beats them all.


Even if its boring.

Not a carbon fan. Feels like plastic.


----------



## Dinosaur (Jan 29, 2004)

I went from a Klein to a Colnago Master X-Light. The difference in the ride was quite remarkable. Steel has a little magic spring like feel to it. The Klein could best be described as a "crotch rocket". It was stiff, but not 'harsh'. I used to bounce back and forth between the two. I gradually stopped riding the Klein (more of a fit problem). My new rig is carbon and the Master X-Light is in the same boat as the Klein (which I gave away). 

As mentioned above, the size and shape of the tubing has more to do about the ride characteristics. One very important thing is if the bike fits you, if ain't don't fit you won't like it.

If you can, ride a shi* load of bikes and buy the one you like the best. Damn what others think or like..


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

You will experience far more difference in feel by changing tyre pressures than from changing frame materials.

_Steel has a little magic spring like feel to it_

This kind of statement is typical of the great 'frame material' debate, and is not particularly helpful or, in my experience, accurate.


----------



## atimido (Jun 17, 2009)

I owned a Trek 5500 OCLV, a Serotta Ti, and now a Fuji Team SL (aluminum). I had the Trek for a long time, and it finally pooped-out on me. It was a decent ride. I then bought the Serotta, and I loved the smooth feel of the ride. However, I didn't feel fast, the bike was heavy, and I became a Grad School student with some bills. So, I sold the Ti Frame and found the Fuji on eBay for $230 NOS. I bought the Fuji, and I love it. It is light and it fits me perfect. It is definitely not as smooth riding as the Ti, but it is very stiff, which I like. So, if you are looking for a smooth ride that will last you beyond your lifetime, Titanium (or steel) is your best bet. If you want a light and smooth ride, I would look into a carbon frame. If you are like me and are budget limited for a few years, consider an aluminum.


----------



## Mellow Yellow (Sep 5, 2003)

I've owned two CroMo bikes, and the one I have now is being relegated to being the "cruising around with the kids at the beach" bike. I'm a clydesdale rider, so Aluminum is a little too unforgiving for me. I'm in the process of aquiring a carbon road bike as my lon distance/touring bike; I'll keep the steel frame as my training bike; and a Carbon & Aluminum bike will be my commuter.


----------



## Mellow Yellow (Sep 5, 2003)

*CroMo vs Alum vs Carbon*

I've owned two CroMo bikes, and the one I have now is being relegated to being the "cruising around with the kids at the beach" bike. I'm a clydesdale rider, so Aluminum is a little too unforgiving for me. I'm in the process of aquiring a carbon road bike as my lon distance/touring bike; I'll keep the steel frame as my training bike; and a Carbon & Aluminum bike will be my commuter.


----------



## Doggity (Mar 10, 2006)

It's all in the implementation, a bike of whatever material can be made to ride smoothly.
That said, I always end up bring up home steel frame bikes...my body just likes them.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Doggity said:


> It's all in the implementation, a bike of whatever material can be made to ride smoothly.
> That said, I always end up bring up home steel frame bikes...my body just likes them.


This is often said, but I think it is really a kind of bicycle PC-ism.

Aluminum is never going to have the degree of spring you'll find in the best carbon, steel and Ti frames. It doesn't mean that aluminum frames are bad, but there are certain qualities that you can't suddenly instill in metal, no matter how you shape it.

I've had a Cannondale since 1989, and I really like the way it climbs and sprints. But that is just a few of the qualities that make a frame truly great.


Of course, it doesn't take much to screw up any material. But some things simply have limits.


----------



## hrumpole (Jun 17, 2008)

I've got a soma 2x with a cromo fork and a spec cf rbx. Love 'em both, but they're different. The roubaix feels like it has a lot more snap, but in terms of forgiveness, they're not that far apart. 25mm on rbx; 32 mm on 2x. The cross bike is obviously heavier, but at my level it aint the arrow, it's the indian.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

_This is often said, but I think it is really a kind of bicycle PC-ism._


Whereas the alternative.... steel is magical, alu is harsh, titanium is like an angels wings on your inner thighs, carbon is laterally blah but vertically mleh is somehow correct?

It's received wisdom of the kind that characterises cycling and cycling nerd conversations.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

olr1 said:


> _This is often said, but I think it is really a kind of bicycle PC-ism._
> 
> 
> Whereas the alternative.... steel is magical, alu is harsh, titanium is like an angels wings on your inner thighs, carbon is laterally blah but vertically mleh is somehow correct?
> ...


That isn't the alternative. That's just another bunch of hooey. The opposite of bad information is not more of the same. 

But it is possible to make simple characterizations that refer to the actual qualities of the materials. The differences between the materials aren't true every time with every frame, but the best examples of any frame type will display those qualites. 

Certainly, unintelligent people will abuse any information they get ahold of. But that doesn't excuse slapping a gag order on having a sensible discussion about the real differences.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> This is often said, but I think it is really a kind of bicycle PC-ism.
> 
> Aluminum is never going to have the degree of spring you'll find in the best carbon, steel and Ti frames. It doesn't mean that aluminum frames are bad, but there are certain qualities that you can't suddenly instill in metal, no matter how you shape it.
> 
> ...


What, exactly, do you mean by "spring"?


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

_But it is possible to make simple characterizations that refer to the actual qualities of the materials._

I agree...

...but those simple characterizations then take on a life of their own, and it becomes 'common knowledge'** or even worse 'common sense' ** that the above stated characteristics are true for all frames of a given material.

My opinion, and I stress that that is all it is, not any more or less valid than anyone elses, is that there are so many other factors that contribute to the 'feel' of a bike, namely: geometry, wheel tension, tyre type, tyre pressure, fork material***, saddle type, bar tape, handlebar, stem, chamois type in shorts, glove type etc... that such characterization is less than accurate.

** common knowledge/common sense are English phrases and I'm not sure if they mean the same in other places: common sense is 'what everybody thinks' which may or may not be actually true.

*** fork material; how does a carbon fork on a steel frame affect things? or an alloy crown with carbon fork blades? or a steel fork on a carbon frame?


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

In my garage at the moment are 3 bikes that get ridden pretty frequently: '10 Roubaix, '03-ish Gunnar Crosshairs, and a 96 A-1 Allez. The gross generalizations are accurate within my little fleet of bicycles. Steel = zingy. Al = harshest. CF = way stiff and way forgiving at the same time. 

Now before y'all get all up in arms, I have 3 sets of wheels that get rotated around between all of em. The most common in rotation is a pair of 20 YO Reflex Ceramic wheels, so its not like I don't have a common basis for comparison.

AFA the biggest difference between carbon forks and steel forks is basically road buzz. The big hits still feel like big hits. Its the little vibrations that go away with the carbon fork. Kinda like the hiss on old cassettes before Dolby did his magic with noise cancellation...

M


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

rogger said:


> What, exactly, do you mean by "spring"?


The amount of energy you put into flexing the frame that you get back out of it.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

olr1 said:


> _But it is possible to make simple characterizations that refer to the actual qualities of the materials._
> 
> I agree...
> 
> ...


The qualities your talking about are certainly important, but none of them can change the way a BB flexes or the harmonics the frame transmits when you do decide to use 23c tires. All the things you listed (except the fork) are nothing more than damping mechanisms. Damping is just a small quality of a good frame.

Again, let's not a slap a gag order on discussing bicycle frames just because some people can't deal with subtlety.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Again, I kind of agree with you, and I do understand what you are saying, but I do think that frame material as the definitive, deciding factor in that somewhat wooly concept of 'how a bicycle rides' is far less important than people think.

The bike that makes me question this was an ALAN cyclocross frame; aluminium for sure, but as flexible as a pole dancer. A good example of material not being the deciding factor.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

olr1 said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
> 
> Again, I kind of agree with you, and I do understand what you are saying, but I do think that frame material as the definitive, deciding factor in that somewhat wooly concept of 'how a bicycle rides' is far less important than people think.
> 
> The bike that makes me question this was an ALAN cyclocross frame; aluminium for sure, but as flexible as a pole dancer. A good example of material not being the deciding factor.


Flexible, but not resiliant. I had a Vitus. It rode okay, but it didn't give back the way other materials with the same flex might.


----------



## Dinosaur (Jan 29, 2004)

*Article by Sheldon Brown on frame material*

This is kind of dated, it just talks about steel, al, and ti. 

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> Steel, being generally more springy (since steel is a springier material then aluminum, so steel frames don't need to be as stiff for efficiency), tends to dampen a lot more of that road stuff.
> 
> Of course, you can manipulate steel, carbon or Ti to be as harsh and stiff as aluminum. But it is almost impossible to get aluminum to have that efficient springyness of the other materials - when almuninum flexes there is more energy lost than transmitted in the other materials. That's why aluminum bikes are either unhelpfully flexy or super stiff - not much middle ground.


Sorry, most of this nonsense contradicts the laws of physics.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> The amount of energy you put into flexing the frame that you get back out of it.


Oh. I thought you were talking about materials properties.

Pardon my ignorance.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Best advice is to ride what you can afford. 

Seeing how bikes are changing so fast because the industry wants us to arrive at retirement broke and penniless, there's no need in dropping a bundle on a frame. 

You can go back a few years and find guys riding, racing and winning grand tours and classics with aluminum frame bikes. It's silly that all the sudden this frame will suddenly hold you back in some way.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> The amount of energy you put into flexing the frame that you get back out of it.


Unless the frame is heating up the amount of energy you put into flexing the frame is always returned, regardless of how much or little it flexes or what material it's made from. Can you tell me where the energy goes if it isn't returned?


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Mel Erickson said:


> Sorry, most of this nonsense contradicts the laws of physics.


Short answer - aluminum doesn't do elastic deformation as well as other materials. Notable flex on aluminum parts converts more of the energy to heat and plastic deformation than the other noted materials. Aluminum makes for a poor spring - it spends too much energy on work hardening.

Now, I've witnessed metalurgists and engineers practically in tears trying to argue how materials and physics really go together, so I won't rise to their level of argument. I don't know what you have the beef with, but my Saturday morning science show view is this:

a) Springier athletic equipment is more efficient because it can convert more user induced deformation back into useful motion. (Pogo sticks, pole vaulting, diving boards, tennis rackets and bicycles). 

b) Some materials make poor springs and aluminum is one of them. That might be for lots of reasons, but the difference in elastic deformation range, work hardening mechanisms, spring rates, etc certainly play a role.


The problem is most bicycle people don't understand what's going on in a bicycle OR materials enough to apply material property physics to bicycle frames. That's why so many people insist that all the Cannondales and Kleins are work hardening themselves to death, and think that carbon fiber has a useful strength to weight ratio 10 times that of steel, ti and aluminum. So if you can get past that stuff to something useful, go ahead. But just posting a denial is annoying.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Short answer - aluminum doesn't do elastic deformation as well as other materials. Notable flex on aluminum parts converts more of the energy to heat and plastic deformation than the other noted materials. Aluminum makes for a poor spring - it spends too much energy on work hardening.
> 
> Now, I've witnessed metalurgists and engineers practically in tears trying to argue how materials and physics really go together, so I won't rise to their level of argument. I don't know what you have the beef with, but my Saturday morning science show view is this:
> 
> ...


Amazing.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

rogger said:


> Amazing.


Inciteful.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Inciteful.


So do you care to elaborate on how "springiness" is more apparent in steel than aluminum? And yes I want it quantified SI units as well. And don't give me any hooh-hah on how it's all different when bike frames are involved.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

rogger said:


> So do you care to elaborate on how "springiness" is more apparent in steel than aluminum? And yes I want it quantified SI units as well. And don't give me any hooh-hah on how it's all different when bike frames are involved.


No, I'd prefer you offer something for a change.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> No, I'd prefer you offer something for a change.


http://www.matweb.com/


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

I like cheesburgers.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

rogger said:


> http://www.matweb.com/


Typical.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Typical.


Reember, the smartest people you will ever meet are on the internet.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Typical.


Informative.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

isaak said:


> Question to oldtimers.
> If you used to ride before CrMo frame and switched later to aluminum frame with carbon fork and carbon seat post is there much difference in ride feeling.
> Is aluminum frame with carbon fork and post still harsher ride then CrMo frame, do you feel more vibration on aluminum frame ?


Each individual frame rides differently. The material used has an influence on the ride, but how it's used by the builder is a bigger determining factor.

To me how a bike handles varies a lot and is a huge factor in comfort. I have 2 road bikes that each get ridden in the 1,500-2,000 miles each year - one is aluminum and one is steel (both with carbon forks). I have another bike that gets 500(ish) miles a year that is a steel frame with a steel fork. None of the three rides the same. How stable they are on downhills varies: one is turned mostly with the handlebar, one almost entire by leaning, and the other is in-between. How well they track a straight line varies. One feels more fluid in turns. Out of the saddle climbing feels unusual on one bike, "normal" on one, and great on the other.

To me a subtle difference in transferring of road noise (if it exists) matters far less than other aspects of how a frame rides.

Test ride each bike and see how it feels to you. The material may play into your decision, but it's impact is pretty low down in importance.


----------

