# Aluminum frame weight question



## Zeekster64 (Dec 23, 2010)

How much does a typical high quality aluminum frame weight?

Does an expensive aluminum frame weight close to a cheap carbon frame?

I'm confused and I can't find the answer.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Zeekster64 said:


> How much does a typical high quality aluminum frame weight?
> 
> Does an expensive aluminum frame weight close to a cheap carbon frame?
> 
> I'm confused and I can't find the answer.



Carbon does not automatically mean light.... There are plenty of aluminum frames out there that are lighter than carbon.. There are 1000gram(2.2lbs) aluminum frames and there are 1000gram carbon frames.. There are some high end carbon frames in the 700-800gr range but that is bordering on stupid light


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

Dedacciai makes an aluminum tubeset that can easily be built into a sub-1000 gram frame.

Don't think I'd recommend one for a Clydesdale, however.


----------



## Zeekster64 (Dec 23, 2010)

Well I'm 195 lbs so...I don't think a 800 gram frame is a smart thing for me to ride


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Here's a pretty honest listing of aluminum frames (and others) with weights. On this list, price is actually a fairly decent indicator of "quality." I'm not affiliated with GVH in any way other than having bought a frame ot two when Gary was still alive.
http://www.gvhbikes.com/

/w


----------



## brians647 (Mar 2, 2007)

Zeekster64 said:


> How much does a typical high quality aluminum frame weight?
> 
> Does an expensive aluminum frame weight close to a cheap carbon frame?
> 
> I'm confused and I can't find the answer.


At 195, an aluminum frame is "close enough" in weight to a carbon one.
To answer your question, I don't think there is a typical weight, maybe just a range. Some aluminum frames will have thicker tubing, or a carbon rear, etc - all things that impact weight, but may or may not affect the bike's appeal to you.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

I have a 57.5cm TT Spooky aluminum - actual 1285g. I think you'd find a CAAD 9 similar.
Same size, 58cm regular Cannondale supersix 1125g.
both bare frame with derrailleur hanger.

Cheaper carbon probably weighs more - so in answer to your question - probably yes.


----------



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

With some exceptions, aluminum is generally above 3 lbs, and carbon is generally below. The exceptions are just that - exceptional.

The frame is generally only 20% of the total bike weight, so it shouldn't be a primary consideration. If you're building a super lightweight you're probably not going to use aluminum. Cannondale has been among the lightest aluminum frames since they first broke the 3 lbs barrier in 1989.


----------



## ApplemanBicycles (Nov 25, 2010)

There isn't an answer to your question! There are so many possibilities. A bike can be built light or heavy, aluminum or carbon, red or green.

Determine which material you want to ride, then look for quality, fit, & price range. This will narrow your choices down substantially.
Good luck in your decision


----------



## lechat67 (Sep 28, 2007)

my 56cm NOS anodized caad 7 frame weighed 1125gms sans RD hanger. bike is about 15.4lbs now. could get it south of 15 with the help of Ebay and a little $.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Look at it this way: You weigh 195lbs. and you HAVE to include your bodyweight in the equations because you're hauling yourself up hills as well as the bike. Assume you have an aluminum bike that weighs 18lbs. including a 3lb. frame. You're tempted to buy a lighter, carbon frame to throw all the parts onto, and in the end you'll save 1lb. because the carbon frame only weighs 2lbs.

How much of an improvement is that?

195+18=213lbs. Aluminum bike

195+17=212lbs. Carbon bike

By buying the carbon frame and swapping the parts over, you have saved a whopping 0.47 percent in weight. You'd save more weight by leaving a waterbottle home, and you STILL wouldn't notice the difference in speed.

Don't fret about the frame weight.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Zeekster64 said:


> How much does a typical high quality aluminum frame weight?
> 
> Does an expensive aluminum frame weight close to a cheap carbon frame?


An inexpensive aluminum frame cane be 2,000g, and one from a big box store will be even heavier.

A nice aluminum frame will be 1,500g or less.


----------



## Zeekster64 (Dec 23, 2010)

I was exploring the idea of carbon but It would be a lot cheaper for me to lose a 1 lb than to upgrade to carbon. The asthetic qualities of carbon do one up aluminum but only a bit and only if the aluminum frame is poorly welded.

I was just curious as to the correlation of weight to quality between the aluminum frame and carbon frame based on their price points.


----------



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

Zeekster64 said:


> I was just curious as to the correlation of weight to quality between the aluminum frame and carbon frame based on their price points.


I don't think quality and weight go hand in hand. Some of the nicest carbon and aluminum frames out there aren't the very lightest.

A good frame (of whatever material) will ride well first, and be reasonably light second. Pushing the bounds of low weight usually means making everything as stiff as possible, and maybe less durable.

Cannondale, Orbea and Pegoretti are three aluminum frame makers actually known for ride qualities.


----------



## kaliayev (Dec 25, 2008)

My limited production Santana Stylus / Easton SC7000 aluminum frame weights just 1000g. Entire build just under 15lbs.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

rx-79g said:


> With some exceptions, aluminum is generally above 3 lbs, and carbon is generally below. The exceptions are just that - exceptional.
> 
> The frame is generally only 20% of the total bike weight, so it shouldn't be a primary consideration. If you're building a super lightweight you're probably not going to use aluminum. Cannondale has been among the lightest aluminum frames since they first broke the 3 lbs barrier in 1989.


This can easily be justified as the fact manufacturers make aluminum frame to be less expensive than carbon. Seriously, if you had an aluminum frameset that weighed what a carbon frame set weighed and it was $1,000 less, would you buy the carbon frameset? If you look at actual builds, you will see that there are many sub 16 lb aluminum bikes out there. Just 5-6 years ago, most of those higher end carbon road bikes you see today were higher end aluminum road bikes. Examples of this are the Giant TCR, Specialized S-Work, Felt F1, Fuji SL, etc. I used to have an '04 S-Works and it was under 16 lbs. in a 58 cm frame. That bike set me back $4K back then. Nowadays, you'll get a 17-18 lb. carbon for that. The problem is that those bikes were much less expensive than their carbon counterparts. Carbon bikes at the same weight costs a lot more. If you were to go with comparably priced framesets, I would bet that the aluminum frame would be lighter. Most frames aren't that much different in weight to start with. Your build will likely dictate more than your frame weight.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

rx-79g said:


> I don't think quality and weight go hand in hand. Some of the nicest carbon and aluminum frames out there aren't the very lightest.
> 
> A good frame (of whatever material) will ride well first, and be reasonably light second. Pushing the bounds of low weight usually means making everything as stiff as possible, and maybe less durable.
> 
> Cannondale, Orbea and Pegoretti are three aluminum frame makers actually known for ride qualities.


+1... Colnagos generally aren't that light compared to the others but they are regarded as having a superb ride quality and are stiff enough where it counts.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

rx-79g said:


> A good frame (of whatever material) will ride well first, and be reasonably light second. Pushing the bounds of low weight usually means making everything as stiff as possible, and maybe less durable.QUOTE]
> 
> Or an outright "noodle." All out stiffness usually (but not always) means more material which translates to more weight. Carbon lends itself to more complex layups and higher grades of material, whereas, outside of using high-tech alloys, aluminum, steel, and even Ti need thicker wall tubing.
> 
> But I still believe "stiffness" is overrated. Sean Kelly could outsprint most everybody of his era and he rode one of the "noodliest" frames of all time - the bonded aluminum Vitus.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*You want numbers?*

Rough, rough, rough estimate, in medium (56cm)ish sizes, across the board:

Supermegalight carbon frame, TdF quality -- 700-800gm
Very light carbon frame, "real world light" -- 1000-1100gm
Light aluminum racing frame (e.g. CAAD5) -- 1300-1400gm
Carbon racing frame circa 2006 -- 1300-1500gm
Lightweight steel frame (welded 853, ox plat, etc) -- 1500-1700gm
Lugged old-school carbon frame -- ~1500gm
Off-brand / not super thin Al frame: - 2000+ gm
Old-school steel road frame, not high-tech tubing -- 2500-3000gm


----------



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

terbennett said:


> This can easily be justified as the fact manufacturers make aluminum frame to be less expensive than carbon. Seriously, if you had an aluminum frameset that weighed what a carbon frame set weighed and it was $1,000 less, would you buy the carbon frameset? If you look at actual builds, you will see that there are many sub 16 lb aluminum bikes out there. Just 5-6 years ago, most of those higher end carbon road bikes you see today were higher end aluminum road bikes. Examples of this are the Giant TCR, Specialized S-Work, Felt F1, Fuji SL, etc. I used to have an '04 S-Works and it was under 16 lbs. in a 58 cm frame. That bike set me back $4K back then. Nowadays, you'll get a 17-18 lb. carbon for that. The problem is that those bikes were much less expensive than their carbon counterparts. Carbon bikes at the same weight costs a lot more. If you were to go with comparably priced framesets, I would bet that the aluminum frame would be lighter. Most frames aren't that much different in weight to start with. Your build will likely dictate more than your frame weight.


I disagree. People ride carbon and have been since the beginning even though there were less costly and lighter aluminum frames. Carbon has ride qualities aluminum lacks, and have been choosing carbon for those qualities since the beginning. 

Some of the most expensive carbon frames are still not all that light. Look at Serotta, for example.



Richard said:


> Or an outright "noodle." All out stiffness usually (but not always) means more material which translates to more weight. Carbon lends itself to more complex layups and higher grades of material, whereas, outside of using high-tech alloys, aluminum, steel, and even Ti need thicker wall tubing.
> 
> But I still believe "stiffness" is overrated. Sean Kelly could outsprint most everybody of his era and he rode one of the "noodliest" frames of all time - the bonded aluminum Vitus.


Actually, not really. When you get really thin wall thickness to lose weight, flexing those thin walls is going to cause fatigue leading to failure. But if you make the tubing diameters large enough to prevent flex, then the thin walls aren't going to fatigue as fast. Vitus frames were light, but the Cannondale 3.0 and later were lighter - and stiffer. I haven't heard of a sub-1000 gram carbon frame that is thought to be flexy.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Zeekster64 said:


> How much does a typical high quality aluminum frame weight?
> 
> Does an expensive aluminum frame weight close to a cheap carbon frame?
> 
> I'm confused and I can't find the answer.


Don't be confused, just go to the weightweenies.starbike.com website and find some actual weights for frames. Be aware there's two places that weights are listed - the old, original listings page on that site. Currently, weights are being listed in a sub-forum of the discussion forums that you can only access if you're a registered user. If this is confusing to you, let me know. WW has been a source of real-life weights for a long time and in my experience, listings there are accurate, considering normal variations among samples of identical parts.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

At 200 lbs I ride a Colnago C=50 carbon a Issac Sonic carbon and a De Rosa Macro
Colnago 1300g frame
Derosa 1350g
Isaac 800g they all built up about the same the Isaac is a lb lighter

It does not make any difference and I like them all the Colnago is designed to be more comfortable the Isaac is the stiffest and the Derosa (aluminum) is my favorite although with carbon fork and seat stays... on flats no difference. on hills the Isaac is fantastic STIFF!!
I can make all these weigh the same with the addition or subtraction of water bottle fill.
get what you like and afford they are all great carbon alum steel. what to me affects the ride the most is geometry and build design not so much the stuff. you can buy a stiff Colnago or a great riding one...they even make bamboo bikes it does not matter so much.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

rx-79g said:


> I disagree. People ride carbon and have been since the beginning even though there were less costly and lighter aluminum frames. Carbon has ride qualities aluminum lacks, and have been choosing carbon for those qualities since the beginning.
> 
> Some of the most expensive carbon frames are still not all that light. Look at Serotta, for example.
> 
> Actually, not really. When you get really thin wall thickness to lose weight, flexing those thin walls is going to cause fatigue leading to failure. But if you make the tubing diameters large enough to prevent flex, then the thin walls aren't going to fatigue as fast. Vitus frames were light, but the Cannondale 3.0 and later were lighter - and stiffer. I haven't heard of a sub-1000 gram carbon frame that is thought to be flexy.


In the beginning, aluminum frames were flexy( ala Vitus). Then they made oversized tubing to make them stiff. Problem was that they were stuff enough where it counted but the ride was jarring. The Cdale 2.8 and 3.0 were a prime examples of that. These are examples of fames that gave aluminum a bad rap. However, there has been so many advancements in aluminum design and technology that many aluminum frames have become very compliant. Actually, if you take a $2500 Madone TCT and compare it to $2500 CAAD 10, I will guarantee you that the CAAD 10 will ride better. People bought into the carbon hype because when carbon frames first became widespread, aluminum was jarring because they were brainwashed by marketing to believe that today. In other words, carbon can be built to deliver on that promise but those framesets cost as much (if not more) than a complete high end aluminum bike. Ride a 2011 CAAD 10-1 and a 2011 Trek Madone 4.7 or Specialized Tarmac Comp. You'll see what I mean. BTW, I ride a $7,000 Felt F1 Sprint and a $2300 Felt FA. My aluminum carbon/rear FA 's ride is more compliant than my carbon F1 Sprint. It's all in the build. To your credit, you're 100% right about the most expensive carbon frames not being that lightweight. That might have to do with durability being the priority. Still, I would ride a Serotta (or Colnago) with pride.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Richard said:


> rx-79g said:
> 
> 
> > A good frame (of whatever material) will ride well first, and be reasonably light second. Pushing the bounds of low weight usually means making everything as stiff as possible, and maybe less durable.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

ciclisto said:


> At 200 lbs I ride a Colnago C=50 carbon a Issac Sonic carbon and a De Rosa Macro
> Colnago 1300g frame
> Derosa 1350g
> Isaac 800g they all built up about the same the Isaac is a lb lighter
> ...


+1....:thumbsup:


----------



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

terbennett said:


> In the beginning, aluminum frames were flexy( ala Vitus). Then they made oversized tubing to make them stiff. Problem was that they were stuff enough where it counted but the ride was jarring. The Cdale 2.8 and 3.0 were a prime examples of that. There has been so many advancements in aluminum design that many aluminum frmaes have become very compliant. Actually, if you take a $2500 Madone TCT and compare it to $2500 CAAD 10, I will guarantee you that the CAAD 10 will ride better. People bought into the carbon hype because when carbon frames first became widespread, aluminum was jarring because they were brainwashed by marketing to believe that today. In other words, carbon can be built to deliver on that promise but those framesets cost as much (if not more) than a complete high end aluminum bike. Ride a 2011 CAAD 10-1 and a 2011 Trek Madone 5.2. You'll see what I mean. BTW, I ride a Felt F1 Sprint and a Felt FA. My aluminum carbon/rear FA 's ride is more compliant than my carbon F1 Sprint. It's all in the build. To your credit, you're 100% right about the most expensive carbon frames not being that lightweight. That might have to do with durability being the priority. Still, I would ride a Serotta (or Colnago) with pride.


I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. I agree that it is possible for to build an aluminum frame that won't be as harsh as a given carbon frame, but that isn't the only aspect of ride, and people seemed to have voted with their dollars that carbon, on average, has nicer ride qualities than aluminum. Maybe the general public is all wrong, but people are seeking out carbon in preference to aluminum at all different price points.

For a little historical accuracy, the Cannondale 3.0 was the first oversized aluminum frame designed for softer ride qualities with its thin seat stays and cantilever dropouts. It was a major difference from the previous Klein-like design and most people acknowledged that it was much, much better - as well as lighter.

If a Madone is stiffer than a CAAD10, it is either because they want it to be (because their customers are most impressed by stiff BBs on test rides), or because it was a necessity to get frame weight down that low. Other carbon bikes will ride better softer. The CAAD10 might be the best designed aluminum bike in the world - which means it might be a poor example to compare against a mid-line carbon bike.

Material construction is always going to be a give and take compromise between ride, weight, durability, cost and stiffness. Some of these can work together, some of these are opposites. At the moment, carbon and titanium offer the largest range of manipulation because of their low density but high ductility. Steel is dense, so making it light requires thin tube walls, that then require stiffness. Aluminum isn't very ductile, so it brings a similar design problem to the table. Not an insurmountable one, but the carbon craze isn't just a bunch of people fooling themselves.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

2002 Giant TCR: 2.2 pounds (1000gr)
Absolutely raceable, well made, short chainstays, long top tube, massive ovalized downtube, replaceable drop out... handled like a rocket on rails at speed, and efficient climber.

Nothing bad to say about this frame, they are still going around strong. As good, if not better in my opinion than the lauded CAAD9


----------

