# Steel vs. Aluminum



## steelguitars (Jul 21, 2013)

I've been riding a mountain bike around town for a while and after some research I think A cyclocross bike is more what I'm looking for, what I'm seeing is that most of the options in the $1500 or less range are aluminum and I have been advised that might not be the best option because of my weight (290) and just overall durability as it will be used for commuting and pleasure ( I ride about 140 miles a week almost all on pavement).

I've only been able to find a few models that are available with steel frames, the Surly Crosscheck, All City Macho Man, Raleigh Roper, Charge Filter and the entry level Motobecane and Nashbar models. 

Does anyone have any experience with any of these models, or can you fill me in on the difference between ALuminum and Steel. I know that looking at past models offered by some of the bigger brands there was a lot of steel models, but that seems to have changed in the last couple of years.

Thanks.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Aluminum vs steel, in terms of "which is better for someone weighing 290" is a faulty argument. Both materials are equal in terms of how much weight that they can carry. You can buy a steel frame that will not support your weight just as easily as you can buy an aluminum one that will not support your weight... it depends on the tubing specifications, not the material.

That said, you are more likely to find a steel bike that is built to carry the extra weight since steel is the primary choice for touring bicycles while on the other hand, a lot of aluminum bikes are geared towards intro-race-bikes and are built lighter than need be (not a problem for someone weighing 150#). 

Glad I could tell you this before anyone else jumps in with the virtues of one metal over the other. There are tradeoffs, but tubing design will have a much greater impact than material choice, in any case.

There's more steel now than there was just a few years ago. Specialized started making a steel version of the Tricross, for example. Kona, Salsa, All-City, Bianchi, Raleigh, Surly, etc. all make good steel bikes.

The key is to get out there and test ride. You don't need to worry about a frame failing on you, what you are worried about is the amount of flex in the frame (does it feel like a wet noodle?). The only way to really know is to take a test ride.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

steelguitars said:


> I've been riding a mountain bike around town for a while and after some research I think A cyclocross bike is more what I'm looking for, what I'm seeing is that most of the options in the $1500 or less range are aluminum and I have been advised that might not be the best option because of my weight (290) and just overall durability as it will be used for commuting and pleasure ( I ride about 140 miles a week almost all on pavement).
> 
> I've only been able to find a few models that are available with steel frames, the Surly Crosscheck, All City Macho Man, Raleigh Roper, Charge Filter and the entry level Motobecane and Nashbar models.
> 
> ...


Frame material choice is of course very important. You can't select cardboard as a frame material and then expect it to perform on the same level as Titanium or Aluminum. Of course, once you've selected your frame material, design then becomes extremely important. However, we are hard pressed to say that design is more important than material choice. They both are important and they both go hand in hand. If you select cardboard as a frame material, then design takes on a larger responsibility than it would, if you had selected a more applicable material. Both steel and Aluminum have many great intrinsic properties for bicycle construction. They therefore, don't possess the same high level of design demands that cardboard carries. The same thing goes for carbon fiber. At any rate, Headloss is absolutely correct about design being the primary reason for your weight being properly supported or not. IMO, steel is your best choice, if you're concerned about length of service life. Otherwise, it won't matter so much about frame material selection. I think you'll find that in most cases, just about any frame material will support your weight, provided that it has been designed properly. Any model coming from the large manufacturing companies should be just fine. However, if there's any remaining doubt, just choose steel to feel safe.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

You're a big guy, and most OEM frames aren't designed around people that large.

Aluminum's material properties don't like flexing and as a big guy you'll likely flex the frame, leading to cracks and failure. That said, I'd suggest you just go out and buy an aluminum 'cross bike because the steel offerings in your price range are too limited. You'll get better component value for your money and if the frame cracks, you can put the parts on a new frame.

I would caution you that it's possible you crack the aluminum frame under normal riding it might not be covered under warranty if the manufacturer deems your weight as a mitigating factor, but I'm merely trying to envision any worst case scenarios.

Since you're already aware of the "aluminum vs. steel thing", I'd say go with the aluminum bike and if it has a what you perceive as a short lifespan, then you can safely conclude an aluminum frame is not right for you. Also, you can always sell the warranty replacement and then use the funds toward a steel frame which may be more suited to your weight.

Due to your weight, typical 'cross bike tire size limitations might not be sufficient. I think the current tire size limit for competition is 34mm. I'm not suggesting you're going to race, but if you want to ride larger tires, verify what the prospective bike will fit before you buy.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Huh. While I agree that for the money, the OP could probably get a better component spec going w/ aluminum, at 290# I definitely would not recommend it.


Peter P. said:


> ...Aluminum's material properties don't like flexing and as a big guy you'll likely flex the frame, leading to cracks and failure...


Kinda says it all for me right there. I don't think anyone wants a frame that is more likely to fail. 
Mind you, I am *not* a "steel is real" fanboy, but in this case, it is the sensible choice.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Peter P. said:


> Since you're already aware of the "aluminum vs. steel thing", I'd say go with the aluminum bike and if it has a what you perceive as a short lifespan, then you can safely conclude an aluminum frame is not right for you.


Hardly a "safe" conclusion... you are implying that all frames are the same. I am in total agreement with you that an ultra-light aluminum frame will not hold up, will be prone to flex. Please explain to me how a stronger frame (an aluminum C'dale touring frame, for example) will be flexed by a heavier guy? It simply sounds like nonsense to me, if that is what you are arguing. 

I also want to restate, for the record, that there are steel frames made of thin-walled tubing and geared towards lightweight riders. I suppose that such a frame is likely out of the OP's price range, but they exist. It's not as simple as "steel is a better choice than aluminum." I just want to emphasize this point so that the OP understands that not all aluminum and not all steel framed bikes are built a like. Ideally, regardless of frame material, you want a bike built with touring-style tubes, but not necessarily touring-style geometry (which is longer to prevent your feet from hitting your gear). While touring bikes are mostly steel, as stated above Cannondale used to make one, so aluminum CAN be made in such a way to carry the heavier load (there just aren't as many bikes with that type of tubing on the market... but in fairness, most steel bikes aren't made to carry a heavy load either. Learn to recognize frame-flex and go test ride).


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

*"Hardly a "safe" conclusion... you are implying that all frames are the same."*

Perhaps that was poorly written but that certainly was not what I meant.

* "I am in total agreement with you that an ultra-light aluminum frame will not hold up, will be prone to flex. Please explain to me how a stronger frame (an aluminum C'dale touring frame, for example) will be flexed by a heavier guy?"*

To answer your question I've clipped this passage from framebuilder Carl Strong's web site, which has and excellent paper discussing frame materials.

"Ferrous alloys (a.k.a. steel) and titanium have a threshold below which a repeating load may be applied an infinite number of times without causing failure. This is called the fatigue limit, or endurance limit. Aluminum and magnesium don’t exhibit an endurance limit, meaning that even with a miniscule load, they will eventually fail after enough load cycles."

So aluminum will crack microscopically if it's flexed AT ALL and those cracks will eventually result in a real frame failure, and below a certain limit, you can flex steel indefinitely and it will never crack. My belief is typical OEM frames are not designed for riders such as the OP and he likely can generate some real power and hence flex in an aluminum frame. To me, it's not a question of whether of IF an aluminum frame will crack under him but WHEN. While I can't tell whether he'd experience the same results with a steel frame, I'm willing to bet a steel frame would last longer. I realize we're not specifying which aluminum or steel frame would be used in his case, so we have to make some generalizations here regarding how light of a tubing would be used, considering his price range.

The problem is, the market offers so few steel offerings for 'cross frames but the aluminum choices are very numerous indeed. If he doesn't have the money to buy a steel bike there's no sense in fighting it; just buy an aluminum bike. And hey; if warranty replacements keep him happy, then other than the inconvenience I see no problem with that.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Peter P. said:


> To answer your question I've clipped this passage from framebuilder Carl Strong's web site, which has and excellent paper discussing frame materials.
> 
> "Ferrous alloys (a.k.a. steel) and titanium have a threshold below which a repeating load may be applied an infinite number of times without causing failure. This is called the fatigue limit, or endurance limit. Aluminum and magnesium don’t exhibit an endurance limit, meaning that even with a miniscule load, they will eventually fail after enough load cycles."
> 
> ...


 Bravo! Hey there, Pete! I think that the best steel CX frames come from Surly, Raleigh, and SOMA.


----------



## j e e p s (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm riding the new Traitor Ruben since a month and really like the feel of a steel frame. Heavier, but very pleasant ride. Traitor cycles will also launch the new Crusade frameset soon.


----------



## steelguitars (Jul 21, 2013)

Thanks for all the information. 

When you guys talk about the bike flexing what exactly am I looking for? A friend of mine, who is much bigger bought a GMC denali road bike from wal mart and he let me ride it, i felt like the bike was lurching it felt really unstable, is that the flexing that you're referring to?

Also Zeet, thanks for the heads up on Surly and Raleigh, I know some people that have Soma frames, but I don't think I'm ready to build a bike, yet. I really like the Raleigh Roper and the Crosscheck so I'm certainly gonna look for a dealer that will let me take one for a ride.


----------



## aureliajulia (May 25, 2009)

Check out the Salsa Vaya 3. Nice bike, and very high quality. Steel with disc brakes. I think around 1400.00 supposed to be better quality than surly or soma. There are a couple other models that are more, but the 3 is a great bike. 

The differences between flex and stiff frames are hard to describe. You want to avoid bikes that feel mushy in the rear and in the bottom bracket. You want the power-transfer to be optimal, so when you pedal, it feels like a light push from you translates into a lot more torque than you expected for your effort. The bike should feel like a strong platform from which to work from, not flexy, weak, or mushy. You need to test ride a lot of bike to see the difference. 

You might try the Cannondale CAADX. it's aluminum, but a very stiff frame set. (Not sure about appropriate weight). There are steel bikes with a lot of flex out there, too.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

steelguitars said:


> When you guys talk about the bike flexing what exactly am I looking for? A friend of mine, who is much bigger bought a GMC denali road bike from wal mart and he let me ride it, i felt like the bike was lurching it felt really unstable, is that the flexing that you're referring to?


It's hard to give a simple answer to this. It's only in the worst case scenario that you'll likely feel anything directly while riding normally. You can push a bike a bit, really mash on the pedals in a sprint for one. Another approach would be to take it off a couple curbs, hop a couple wheelies... actually push the bike a bit. Don't look for "flex" so much as look for relative stiffness between two different bikes. If you ride a few bikes and one of them is noodley, you'll notice. 

A more subtle type of flex isn't felt so much in the frame, but rather as it starts to affect your braking and gearing adjustments. A frame on a stand isn't flexing at all while a frame underneath you will start to move in different directions affecting your cable tensions. You're unlikely to notice this without putting a lot of miles on the bike while making adjustments yourself.

Maybe someone else can weigh in with a better explanation, but the above is what I've noticed in my own personal experience. On a side note, a cheap wal*mart bike is likely to be more rigid and less flexy which is par for the course on a heavy, non-butted, frame. Rigidness and flex are both good qualities, what you are really looking for is the right balance between them. A little flex gives you more comfort while a little rigidity gives you better efficiency. The relative balance between them will vary from one rider to another, dependent on weight. 

One thing to watch for is tubing size. Larger diameter tubing (even if the tubing thickness is the same), will be stiffer. Take a look at a Cannondale and you'll notice that they tend to use obnoxiously big tubing diameters on many of their bikes. OS (oversized) tubing is sometimes found on steel bikes... such a bike might be too stiff for a lightweight guy and perfect for you. I don't know of anyone currently making an OS steel frame, but I've seen them pop up on craigslist from time to time. Using larger diameter tubing in order to create less flex isn't just seen in frames but also in the spindle for the cranks.

Also, Salsa Vaya +1 it's a great bike built to carry a load that is fun on any terrain. It's definitely one worth test-riding.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Regarding the flex you asked about:

When you stomp on the pedals, the bottom bracket will deflect to the left and right. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it can make the bike feel like it's not accelerating very fast, but many a fast rider has ridden successfully on flexible frames. As long as the bike feels "safe" to you, you should be okay. Also, BB flex may result in the chain rubbing against the front derailleur cage, but some of that rub could be due to a flexible crank. Chain rub can drive you nuts and may be more obvious when you're out of the saddle.

Other undesired flex is such as pedaling hard may cause the wheels to not track one behind the other. Leaning into corners may cause the fork and headtube to twist the wheels out of plane with each other.

Flex in a vertical plane is a good thing because it acts as a shock absorber of sorts, as long as it's not excessive.


----------

