Aluminium frames-not for me!!

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
ricardolamos
Posts: 110
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 1:45pm

Aluminium frames-not for me!!

Post by ricardolamos »

Having recently acquired a bike with an aluminium frame I must say I am going off them rapidly.

OK,they are light,stiff and cheaper to produce but:

1.They dent easily

2.You have to be very careful tightening seat clamp/front mechs to avoid compressing the tubing

3.Threads strip more easily

4.Ride is less comfortable

I will for one not be buying another and will stick with steel in the future!
Asdace

Post by Asdace »

I had a Carlton Corsair 531 tour for years and had done 1000's of miles on it. Lovely bike to ride. I regretted selling it, now I've a Dawes Karakum trekking bike, not the same. But last year I picked a Bob Jackson 531 thru-out at the York Cycle Show Auction for £80. What a joy to ride on, nearly sold it last week on this forum. Will be keeping it and maybe upgrade some parts and stick a Blackburn Low Rider on it. Probably sell the Karakum, as stuck in the corner of the spare bedroom. Still nice bike all the same.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Post by Si »

I've not noticed that they dent more easily. I've had 5 or 6 break into seperate bits, but not much in the way of denting :wink:

Also, I don't agree that they necessarily are more uncomfortable - I think it depends more on the frame's design and build than the material. It may just be that most 'budget' or entry level bikes are now Alu and that these are not as well built as steel ones, which are now mostly in the specialist mid to higher end of the market?

For me, given the choice between steel and Alu I'll continue with steel. Wouldn't mind a Ti but a bit pricey for my means. Don't really fancy a plastic one: although I've never bosted a carbon fork I'd not fancy a whole frame made of it given my bike breaking abilities.
PW
Posts: 4519
Joined: 23 Jan 2007, 10:50am
Location: N. Derbys.

Post by PW »

Given an artisan framebuilder 10 miles up the road & a choice of anything from 531ST (he still had some last I heard!) to 953 I don't think I'll be buying aluminium any time soon.
725 makes a good light tourer for a reasonable price if anyone's in that market.
If at first you don't succeed - cheat!!
pliptrot
Posts: 705
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 2:50am

Post by pliptrot »

does anyone know the details of builders using Reynolds 953? It seems to be a wonder material, several of the well-known builders are suggesting they'll be offering frames in it soon, but I'd like to know of a builder who's using it already, and has some experience.

If it's a s good as they say it is, then aluminium will be consigned to the cheap end of the market, for sure.

Pjl
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Post by Mick F »

What are 953's properties?

What do "they" say about it?
Mick F. Cornwall
PW
Posts: 4519
Joined: 23 Jan 2007, 10:50am
Location: N. Derbys.

Post by PW »

It's a ferrous alloy - AFAIK it doesn't class as steel because there's no carbon content. Apparently it's stainless, and the strength of the material allows very thin walls in oversized tubes - ie the frame is a superlight job in a material developed to compete in the carbon market.
Framebuilders? I know of 3, Mercian, Rourke & Edison in descending order of price. Frame only (Reynolds don't make 953 fork blades) costs £1,000 to £1,700 so it pays to shop around.
PS- I'll tell you how it performs later this summer. :wink: :D
If at first you don't succeed - cheat!!
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Post by hubgearfreak »

i seem to recall dave yates assembling a stainless reynolds frame at york rally last year.

but is it really for us?

speaking for myself, i like saddlebags, mudguards, water bottles & longevity. and environmentalism. surely an extra 500grammes (or whatever) in the frame is nothing to the 90kgs me and the bike weigh. certainly for the extra £500-£1000 cost mentioned above
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Post by Si »

hubgearfreak wrote:
but is it really for us?

speaking for myself, i like saddlebags, mudguards, water bottles & longevity. and environmentalism. surely an extra 500grammes (or whatever) in the frame is nothing to the 90kgs me and the bike weigh. certainly for the extra £500-£1000 cost mentioned above


I have to agree with you there. From what I've read so far it seems to me that 953 may be up there with Alu in the weight stakes, but it might also be approaching it in the awkwardness to weld and the durability stakes too? Fine for race frames but doesn't seem the ideal for a tourer. Hopefully someone can prove me wrong on this?
reohn2

Post by reohn2 »

I think Hubbers has a good point.
Given that say 531,631,725,853,give the same ride qualities is the cost of 953 really worth extra £'s for anything but racing.
There was a Carbon Koga Myata(sp?)touring bike tested in Cycling some time back and I had laugh to myself,it cost over £2000, given that we're talking touring bike,I thought that if buying a new touring bike my money would have been better spent on a steel frame from a durability percpective,and probably with enough money left for a two week tour.

I think its the same with alloy,there are only one or two manufacturers willing to guarentee their frames for life,so one has to conclude unless buying one of their frames an alloy frame has a very finite life.

It all points back to steel,extremely durable,very light,we're only talking a 500g, maximum 1kg difference heavier than alloy,carbon or super alloy(953),easily repairable and comfortable.What more could we ask of a bicycle frame material!
I just weighed a full drinking bidon, 750g so carrying two would mean a 1.5kg(3.3lb) weight penalty and who wouldn't carry water:shock: .
Just weighed myself 85kgs(I could actually save money not spend it if I were to lose 5kgs) :shock: .
Its got to be said most of us aren't top flight athletes :cry:

typical camping tour :-
Bike(steel) 12,25kgs
luggage 8.2kgs
me 85kgs

total 105kgs

Super material bike weight saving, being generous say 1.5kgs
weight saving is around 1% of total
even with a rider weight of 70kgs the % is only 1.5%
Even with a lighter steel bike and day ride luggage:-
Bike= 10kgs
luggage=3kgs
me= 85kgs

total= 97kgs

1.5kgs weight saving =1.45% of total
Rider weight of 70kgs =2% of total
calculations are approx.
It becomes obvious that the weight is all rider,so less pie and chips should do it.
Can't be bothered to work out the cost per kilo saved penalty but its a lot :shock:
Last edited by reohn2 on 19 Apr 2007, 11:10am, edited 1 time in total.
reohn2

Post by reohn2 »

hubgearfreak wrote:i seem to recall dave yates assembling a stainless reynolds frame at york rally last year


I spoke to Dave Yates about four years ago about an audax type frame (i was thinking 853 at the time)he kept telling me how he doesn't ride anything but 525 and for the slight difference it wasn't worth the extra outlay,but obviously if I want 853 he would make.I was struck by the complete honesty of the man.
I came away, took a long look at my Raleigh 531"fast"day bike and saved my money.
PW
Posts: 4519
Joined: 23 Jan 2007, 10:50am
Location: N. Derbys.

Post by PW »

I wanted to replace a fast touring frame which broke a couple of years ago, steep angled, fast handling & FUN! :D It won't carry more than a wedgepack - maybe a small barbag for fuel tank on long runs, basically it's a road frame with mudguards 'cos I detest getting a wet behind. At 54 it's probably the last frame I'll ever order, especially as I don't intend working much longer :D so I splashed out a bit. I have a 531 camping iron and a hack MTB, there's an old Viscount sports frame in the shed which may end up as a fixie, so a wolf in sheep's clothing for fast rides round the Peak just finishes the stable off nicely.
If at first you don't succeed - cheat!!
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Post by horizon »

My take on this is that it depends whether you believe that alu was brought in because it is better or because it is cheaper. I believe that it was brought in primarily for manufacturing reasons once the problems of welding it had been overcome. This means that I am highly sceptical of any claims for it. But the price I pay will be a more expensive bike.

It also means that while I am fairly satisfied that alu is not an improvement on steel (i.e Reynolds), I cannot prove it but, for my own purposes, don't need to.

I also believe that there is great virtue in simplicity: this presents the constant need to assess innovation as to its real usefulness (and some of it is useful) which I presume is what this message board is all about.

End of philosophical reflection.
reohn2

Post by reohn2 »

horizon wrote:My take on this is that it depends whether you believe that alu was brought in because it is better or because it is cheaper. I believe that it was brought in primarily for manufacturing reasons once the problems of welding it had been overcome. This means that I am highly sceptical of any claims for it. But the price I pay will be a more expensive bike.

It also means that while I am fairly satisfied that alu is not an improvement on steel (i.e Reynolds), I cannot prove it but, for my own purposes, don't need to.

I also believe that there is great virtue in simplicity: this presents the constant need to assess innovation as to its real usefulness (and some of it is useful) which I presume is what this message board is all about.

End of philosophical reflection.


Phil your not so phical, I agree with your outlook :wink: .
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Post by hubgearfreak »

reohn2 wrote: less pie and chips should do it.


less pizza and beer in my case :lol:

me and cycle, without water or tools, are actually 97.5kgs.
Post Reply