told to avoid aluminum frames

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by p55mac
I have to agree boudreaux. Fitness and having the engine is everything. I’m 6-1, fairly lean at 165lbs, and drag my 531 Trek up hills at least 4 days a week. It’s an ’87 400-T, does have a nice ride (supposedly getting softer with age), but at 24.5 lbs it is heavy. It’s still listed at the Reynolds site, but I don’t see too many in today’s market (road bike). Are they still available? If so, are they butted any differently today for additional weight savings?

Yeah, they're still making them. The old ones had lugged frames and came with a road group triple but the new ones are TIG welded and have some MTB components like the crank and RD. Otherwise pretty similar.

Nice blog DiabloScott. You write with considerable style.
Look forward to more pics (cute daughter!).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by sea
Al. does not have the memory of any other frame material. What little life it has when new is soon lost. Metal fatigue is the culprit.

Although it seems this theory doesn't have many backers, this isn't the only place I've heard it - could there in fact be something to it, if it's put in the proper context? Anyone else out there agree? I'm no metallurgist but I can imagine that riding an alu frame might work-harden it to an extent, possibly changing the ride characteristics. Could it be that with some cheap or poorly made alu frames, there's a bit of truth in this?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
Although it seems this theory doesn't have many backers, this isn't the only place I've heard it - could there in fact be something to it, if it's put in the proper context? Anyone else out there agree? I'm no metallurgist but I can imagine that riding an alu frame might work-harden it to an extent, possibly changing the ride characteristics. Could it be that with some cheap or poorly made alu frames, there's a bit of truth in this?

Every stress applied to aluminum is cumulative and as such it will eventually fail.Engineers and metalurgists know that and design around it for several 'lifetimes' of use,whatever a lifetime is.70xx is often regarded as less durable than 60xx alloys due to the more extensive heattreatment of 60xx. but [censored] can be built out of either, just as with any other material. Steel and Ti do not fatigue the same way ,and as long as not stressed beyond their elastic limit have an infinite life.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by p55mac
I have to agree boudreaux. Fitness and having the engine is everything. I’m 6-1, fairly lean at 165lbs, and drag my 531 Trek up hills at least 4 days a week. It’s an ’87 400-T, does have a nice ride (supposedly getting softer with age),......

That softer business is just more hooey and folklore.

853 really did get a LOT of hype there for a while! When I had my custom MTB frame built that was what I had intended to have it made from. When I talked to the guy that built it (Carl Strong) he steered me away from the 853 and suggested Columbus Foco (i think that's what it is). I really like how it rides but I can't compare it to 853 because I've never ridden an 853 frame.

As far as the aluminum thing goes; I just got a Cannondale CAAD 5 road bike and so far it has been great. I lot of big guys (I'm 6'4" 200lbs.) like the oversized aluminum frames because they don't flex as much at the bottom bracket as steel frames tend to.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Now, there is a barge load of sweeping generalizations,well laced with hooey.

Couldn't agree more! Where the hell did that come from??? Whatever!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by p55mac
Nice blog DiabloScott. You write with considerable style.
Look forward to more pics (cute daughter!).

A FAN!

My daughter's favorite expression while riding in the bike trailer is "VENGA VENGA VENGA!" She's almost ready for the Trail-a Bike.

Thanks mac!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
Every stress applied to aluminum is cumulative and as such it will eventually fail.Engineers and metalurgists know that and design around it for several 'lifetimes' of use,whatever a lifetime is.70xx is often regarded as less durable than 60xx alloys due to the more extensive heattreatment of 60xx. but [censored] can be built out of either, just as with any other material. Steel and Ti do not fatigue the same way ,and as long as not stressed beyond their elastic limit have an infinite life.

Very true, and you touched on this but to clarify even further (because that "cumulative" statement could really scare someone off of aluminum frames): aluminum frames that are available to the general pubilc for purchase are designed to withstand more fatigue (or stress) cycles than they could ever see under normal (or even abnormal) use. So they can potentially last as long as frames made from other materials, provided they're not damaged in a crash. By the way, the potential for crash damage does seem to be the area where aluminum might fall short of other materials IMO.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jimbooffa
A knowlegable co-worker of mine has told me to avoid aluminum frames. He said that I should look for a Reynolds 853 frame. I am 6ft 225lb and ride on group rides mostly on weekends. He claims that the aluminum frames are a very harsh ride compared to steel.

I am looking at the Fuji Robauix Pro which has the Reynolds 853 frame and 105 components. Any opinions on this bike.

I have no intentions to race. Just weekend rides 20-50 miles, an occasional metric century or some day in the distant future a real century. I like riding hills and my old 12 speed isn't helping me get up the steep ones.

I ended up with the Specialized Allez Cro-Mo that uses a Columbus Foco frame (tensile strength is supposedly the same as 853 Reynolds, although I don't know how it compares in other ways). I absolutely loved the feel of this bike as soon as I test rode it. My boyfriend rides a 531 Reynolds track bike that he likes a lot, and just bought a an older aluminum EV2 bike (bianchi reparto corso), which is a little freaky because aren't they notorious for failing faster than most?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by brightgarden
..... and just bought a an older aluminum EV2 bike (bianchi reparto corso), which is a little freaky because aren't they notorious for failing faster than most?

Yeah, they had alot of issues. Poor design: build em too light,and it can happen. Stuff fails,light stuff fails quicker,and defective stuff fails almost immediately.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mjw_byrne
Although it seems this theory doesn't have many backers, this isn't the only place I've heard it - could there in fact be something to it, if it's put in the proper context? Anyone else out there agree? I'm no metallurgist but I can imagine that riding an alu frame might work-harden it to an extent, possibly changing the ride characteristics. Could it be that with some cheap or poorly made alu frames, there's a bit of truth in this?

I think the characteristics commonly associated with aluminum -- such as its reduced stress resistance when compared to steel -- are true both in a technical sense, and as broad generalizations -- but the important and less resolved issue is how much those truths actually affect modern bikes and the modern rider.

As far as I know, there just isn't the evidence, annecdotal or technical, to suggest that a well-made modern aluminum bike can't satisfy what most modern riders are looking for -- a light, tough, comfortable bike that will last years (how many years? depends on the bike and the riding).

Sure, a well-made steel bike will last longer (if you keep corrosion at bay), but treating aluminum like a dangerous fad is -- in fact -- a barge load of hooey.

There, I said it.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by lokstah


As far as I know, there just isn't the evidence, annecdotal or technical, to suggest that a well-made modern aluminum bike can't satisfy what most modern riders are looking for -- a light, tough, comfortable bike that will last years (how many years? depends on the bike and the riding).

xactly

Thanks for all the replys. Plan to test ride a few bikes before buying. Hoping to see a difference on new bike because the one I ride now is pretty pathetic. The triple chain ring should give me a few lower gears I hope. As far as loosing weight, I am fairly lean as I am a non competitive bodybuilder. Completely contracdtory sports but I love both.

Not convinced that aluminum is an inferrior frame material. That is why I posed the question in the first place.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by jimbooffa
A knowlegable co-worker of mine has told me to avoid aluminum frames. He said that I should look for a Reynolds 853 frame. I am 6ft 225lb and ride on group rides mostly on weekends. He claims that the aluminum frames are a very harsh ride compared to steel.

I am looking at the Fuji Robauix Pro which has the Reynolds 853 frame and 105 components. Any opinions on this bike.

I have no intentions to race. Just weekend rides 20-50 miles, an occasional metric century or some day in the distant future a real century. I like riding hills and my old 12 speed isn't helping me get up the steep ones.

I went from an aluminum Specialized w/ carbon fork to an all carbon Giant TCR this year. All other things aside, the carbon fibre ride is much better on the long rides. My hands used to be sore on the 50+ mile rides, along with a general feeling of weariness. I no longer have the sore hands or "beat up" feeling. All carbon fibre and cf stearing tube. As noted, there are no generalizations, but for me, it is a huge difference as most of my rides are 30 to 80 miles. On short rides it would be insignificant.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by brightgarden
My boyfriend rides a 531 Reynolds track bike that he likes a lot, and just bought a an older aluminum EV2 bike (bianchi reparto corso), which is a little freaky because aren't they notorious for failing faster than most?

The pre-200 EV2s had problems, but the later ones are quite durable. I've ridden EV2s and an EV4 in all types of terrain and they are definitely not intended for casual touring.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
853 is way overrated. For a nice ride try 531. Fittness and dragging around no excess poundage works better for getting up hills than a new frame.

I haven't head much about bike materials in 20 yrs, I ride an old Reynolds 531 Falcon Pro, but most of my biking friends also say that the steel framed bikes give a more comfortable ride than AL, TI and Carbon Fiber, even though those materials are lighter. Therefore, if your riding is mostly recreational, you should give the steel frames and AL or Ti frames a test ride on bumpy roads, if you can, before you buy a new one