Perceived prejudice against non steel frames.

[andrewk]

Whilst trawling this forum I have noticed a prejudice against non steel frames...why?
All frame materials have their benefits and applications. I wouldn't compare a high end steel frame to a cheap aluminium one but rather to a titanium one, titanium wins for me here. Similarly I'd prefer a low end aluminium frame to a low end steel one. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not knocking steel but other materials also have their merits.
One pro steel argument that I don't buy is the one that maintains that one should go for a 26" wheel steel frame with a steel rack etc. because it can be fixed if you're touring in the third world. OK but how many people actually do cycle tour the third world? I have no intention of going there on holiday let alone cycle touring there, I suspect that I'm not alone in this.
So what's so bad about 700c wheeled titanium or aluminium bikes?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Like you said perceived dislike more say, why do you need a other material than steel frame
I meet two types of people them who reason and work for an answer and those who over enfuse for new hyper and because its different some how special, with no technical reason or clear advantage it will make the rider perform better (ignoring the feel good factor)
And retort, you question their new found invention
If they cannot offer a advantage they look silly or feel silly
Dont ever offer to swap bikes if they say your bikes better than mine, they know its not the bike that will help them up the hill.

[tatanab]

So what's so bad about 700c wheeled titanium or aluminium bikes?

They are modern

Seriously, I do not think there is an enormous amount of prejudice. My feelings/observations are along the lines of -

Titanium - there may be too many reports of frames breaking for comfort.
Carbon fibre - can fail almost explosively.

So both of those are fine if you replace frames fairly frequently, although I've never owned or ridden either.

Aluminium - I've only ever ridden low/mid market frame (a rental) and it shook me to bits, but I cannot comment on a high end frame because I've never owned one.

However, since I tend to be in the custom frame market I am more likely to stick with steel. All of my equipment is modern though, no 26 1/4 wheels here, or Resilion brakes on Constrictor rims with acetylene lamps for night riding.

[horizon]

andrewK: without the advent of aluminium frames most people would be riding around on expensive, heavy steel frames. Aluminium is cheaper to process and mass produce frames from and can allow the design of frames (e.g. MTB frames) that would be far too heavy in steel.

Having said that, a good quality steel frame may produce a nicer ride. But most people on this forum are prepared to pay over £1000 for a bike.

[mrjemm]

To me, and many here I am sure, far prettier frames are made from steel.

Aluminium frames tend to be fat-tubed.

Titanium frames tend to be fairly 'square' (manufacturing challenges, I presume) and unpainted.

Plastic frames are like some dodgy designer's idea of space-age or 'hi'tech' (read OTT).

And that's besides all the practical points that others are expressing. Many of us would love a good bike in any of these materials, but for most of us, the best combination will almost certainly be met by steel. I for one, would love a Ti bike, but to justify it's use, the final build cost would be beyond me, and beyond my requirements.

And then of course, steel is 'in'.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

andrewK: without the advent of aluminium frames most people would be riding around on expensive, heavy steel frames. Aluminium is cheaper to process and mass produce frames from and can allow the design of frames (e.g. MTB frames) that would be far too heavy in steel.
Having said that, a good quality steel frame may produce a nicer ride. But most people on this forum are prepared to pay over £1000 for a bike.

Does that statment hold water if you compare welded all steel not lugs to welded all aluminium
Also I might not be completely correct but at last look alu was twice the raw price of steel

[al_yrpal]

I like steel because I have found it damps vibration better than aluminium. I have no experience of titanium.

I am a convert

Al

[meic]

Prejudice?

No doubt.

All the failures and flaws of non ferrous are due to the material.
All the failures and flaws of steel are due to neglect, poor design or crashes.

The two sides of the argument would interpret the above statements in a completely different way.

[ChrisButch]

Some of the prejudice is more to do with the current association of a particular frame material with particular kinds of cyclist and attitudes to cycling, rather than the merits or otherwise of the material itself. Applies particularly to carbon fibre. Just because of the successful marketing of carbon fibre bikes as (relatively) affordable quasi-racing machines, well equipped and lightweight, to a large relatively affluent group new to cycling, we tend to think of cf mainly in those terms. Whereas, as I understand it, one of the advantages of the material is that you can build into it virtually any combination of properties you choose - so that, for instance, you can now make a carbon fibre piano soundboard with all the resonance, but none of the susceptibility to changing climatic conditions, of well-seasoned wood. So it's possible to imagine, improbable as it may seem, cf being made into a corrosion-free, robust, durable but light frame for a utility or commuting bike. And given the remarkable fall in the cost of cf frames as production volume has dramatically increased, no reason why it shouldn't be affordable (at least while the oil lasts). So a lot of these attitudes have perhaps more to do with the way markets work than any intrinsic qualities in the material.

[mrjemm]

Doesn't help that CF is essentially disposable. Damage it and you're stuffed.

Remember this is a touring site, not a racing site. Bikes likely have a hard life of being put on trains, leant against things, left out in bad weather and so on- these bikes likely have a harder life than most mountain bikes in many ways.

[Mr. Viking]

Steel frames have been about longer, so you can presumably know better what to expect when ordering a frame. The manufacturing process has had more time to mature, ie more shops know better how to build ideal steel frames. The other materials are newer, so there is still learning going on when it comes to building frames, and there may be more variance between individual frames. Maybe in time other materials will prove to be better, but I think it is certainly plausible that steel frames are the best. I would probably buy steel for these reasons, though I'm pretty inexperienced and not sure if I could tell the difference between a good frame and a bad frame.

[Brucey]

....So what's so bad about 700c wheeled titanium or aluminium bikes?

Nothing much in many cases, but most of them are made differently, for a different job, than most steel touring frames.

I quite like some Ti bikes, to ride. I like far fewer Al bikes for riding unladen, anyway; they tend to be very stiff, or to not be very durable.

I used to take steel frames for granted. I used to hanker after more stiffness, too, because I thought 'it must be better' in some way. I no longer take them for granted, and I certainly don't think that stiffer is automatically better.

It turns out that the specific modulus of Ti, Steel, and Al is about the same, which has some interesting consequences for frame design. It means that if you want to make a lighter frame than a steel one, at the same stiffness, you can do, but you need slightly oversize tubes to do it. Using a similar strategy you can even have a lighter frame that is stiffer, too. Actually the latter is rather commonplace and the former is not, more's the pity.

Proven frame designs and materials that don't tend to suffer catastrophic failures, and can be repaired in the field should the need arise etc have got a lot going for them. If it ain't broke, why fix it....?

I would argue that a different frame material should need to have some compelling combination of attributes before it should be chosen over steel, especially for custom-made touring bikes. Being lighter and/or cheaper is not nearly enough, especially if it is at the expense of some other important attribute.

cheers

[andrewk]

To avoid any misunderstandings....
I'm not against steel, I'd love to have a beautiful Mercian, however my bikes are relatively utilitarian non luxury examples:
Hyroformed aLuminium full susser, steel would be too heavy for this application.
Titanium tourer.
Hydroformed aluminium pedelec, front suspension and big tyres negate any inherent harshness.
Cheap round tube aluminium shopping bike, anything better would have been nicked by now.
Aluminium folder.
The right material for the application in all cases, I think.

[foxyrider]

Prejudice?

No doubt.

All the failures and flaws of non ferrous are due to the material.
All the failures and flaws of steel are due to neglect, poor design or crashes.

The two sides of the argument would interpret the above statements in a completely different way.

rather simplistic and untrue!

I've not had a traditional Al frame break on me but i've had failures due to material on two steel frames, the one Al failure i have had was a folder that had done 10,000 miles loaded touring and was over 10 years old.

There certainly is a bias on here towards steel, most of the arguments - comfort, repairability and so on are pretty circular and illogical without any scientific/research back up. Ten years ago i might well have joined the 'steel is all conquering' brigade but not now. My aluminium steeds (Giant SCR and Airnimal Chameleon) are more comfortable than by steel ones (assorted custom built 531 and Columbus race tubed mounts) and my carbon (Peugeot CR02) is better still. That doesn't mean i'd use carbon for a full on expedition bike but the chances of me buying a new steel frame are small.

I sell touring bikes for a living, 99.9% in the last year have been Al, the balance steel. Feedback from customers - lets just say comfort isn't a problem and i'm unaware of any frame failures since the Tricross started the revolution six years ago. Why are my customers buying them? price, availability, components, riding position, weight, comfort and open minds - they are split @ 50/50 between hardened cyclists and newbies so no particular bias there. We have steel bikes in store between £200 and £1200 so its not that even but apparently even a poorly equiped steel tourer 'has' to cost much more than an aluminium framed machine with similar parts.

However our store seems to be in a minority - a lot of our satisfied customers have been elsewhere first and almost categorically told that their only touring bike option is a 35lb steel monster that handles like a barge on glass and puts a silly big dent into their finances. The silly smirk on their faces when offered something else brightens my Saturdays no end!

[Brucey]

....but the chances of me buying a new steel frame are small.

I sell touring bikes for a living, 99.9% in the last year have been Al, ..... i'm unaware of any frame failures since the Tricross started the revolution six years ago....

look out, here comes the Aluminium bike frame salesman....

The tricross isn't a touring bike that will do the same thing as many steel-framed touring bikes will.

A lot of sales is all about customer perception. If steel frames are perceived as old fashioned, and/or the only ones available are rather heavy and/or expensive, then yeah, I would expect you to be able to punt out aluminium frames to people who don't want to carry a load at a given price point.

It doesn't mean they are especially good, or especially durable.

Many of the bikes sold do no miles and languish in a garage, or are ridden by people who wouldn't necessarily notice the difference.

Lager outsells champagne. Doesn't make lager a better drink, does it?

cheers