Steel v. aluminium

[Geoff Crowther]

I made an interesting discovery today. I already had the weight of my touring Dawes Karakum, aluminium framed but with a steel fork, mudguards, front and rear racks.
This morning I weighed my new, steel framed Thorn Sherpa expedition tourer, again with mudguards and steel racks.
Now, this wasn't especially scientific; I used bathroom scales, weighing myself, then lifting the bike and weighing myself again.
Both were weighed with a pump and computer, but the Topeak Mountain Morph on the Sherpa must be heavier than the cheapo BTwin pump on the Dawes.
Bear in mind, the Sherpa has heavier tyres, a rear battery lamp and a front dynamo lamp, plus the dynamo front hub and a third bottle cage.
The result? The alloy Dawes weighed 15.6kg ... the Thorn, 15.8kg and don't forget the extra lamps and dynamo that included, implying that, like for like, they were about equal or, indeed, the steel bike probably weighed fractionally less.
We know the benefits of steel; resiliance and strength, and the fact the tubes are narrower but I have to say I was surprised.
Again, not properly accurate or scientific but the weights were close enough to show no significant difference.

 

[raleighnut]

Ah but you try telling them that, until they've tried one you won't be believed.

 

[Geoff Crowther]

Ah but you try telling them that, until they've tried one you won't be believed.

Yeah, no (why do people say that) you're dead right mate.
So, I mean ... steel's gotta be 'eavier than aluminium like ... innit?

 

[Bodhbh]

It'll depend alot on how you have the Sherpa built. My mate has one and it weights a ton, 18-19kg...but with the sputnik rims, marathon XR tyres, front and back racks, etc.

 

[Drago]

Steel for a bike like that. Better ductile lifespan, more likely to find a steel welder if the frame breaks while riding in Uzwankistan, and transmits less high frequency harshness to your contact points. Within certain limits weight isn't such a serious consideration on a tourer intended for intergalactic miles.

 

[Gravity Aided]

Yeah, no (why do people say that) you're dead right mate.
So, I mean ... steel's gotta be 'eavier than aluminium like ... innit?

I had a 1995 Cannondale H-600, which I thought would be lighter than my 1984 Fuji Touring Series IV, but they are the same weight. I had built them up for the same duties, and traded the Cannondale to get just the frame for the Fuji Touring. Because, as @Drago says, less harshness to the contact points, as well as Uzwankistan considerations, as I live in the Midwestern US. Steel just seems to work better for me, and my riding needs.

 

[Geoff Crowther]

It'll depend alot on how you have the Sherpa built. My mate has one and it weights a ton, 18-19kg...but with the sputnik rims, marathon XR tyres, front and back racks, etc.

Yep, I'm sure you're right but don't forget, I have heavy tyres (Marathon Mondials) and front and rear racks on there. But it could obviously be heavier.
What's interesting is, I was EXPECTING it to be heavier than my alloy Dawes ... but it ain't.

 

[Geoff Crowther]

Steel for a bike like that. Better ductile lifespan, more likely to find a steel welder if the frame breaks while riding in Uzwankistan, and transmits less high frequency harshness to your contact points. Within certain limits weight isn't such a serious consideration on a tourer intended for intergalactic miles.

Totally agree but it's STILL no heavier than my alloy tourer.
BTW where exactly is Uzwankistan? Might like to go there

 

[Drago]

I wouldn't seriously expect a quality steel frame to be heavier than an ally one, seeing as wall thickness of 0.5 mm isn't unknown in decent steel machines. It's cheaper bikes where the biggest differences are to be found.

 

[Cycleops]

But the scientific test Geoff would be to weigh just the frame and forks, then you can judge, but I suspect there would be little difference.

 

[steveindenmark]

It'll depend alot on how you have the Sherpa built. My mate has one and it weights a ton, 18-19kg...but with the sputnik rims, marathon XR tyres, front and back racks, etc.

I always sit and chuckle at these type of posts because I have found the secret that nobody apparently knows about.

I never carry my Koga, I always ride it. :O)

 

[Geoff Crowther]

But the scientific test Geoff would be to weigh just the frame and forks, then you can judge, but I suspect there would be little difference.

Of course, you're right Cycleops. But, you'll appreciate, I'm not about to strip my gorgeous new tourer to bits just for the sake of science. I am, you must understand, an artist

 

[Bodhbh]

I always sit and chuckle at these type of posts because I have found the secret that nobody apparently knows about.

I never carry my Koga, I always ride it. :O)

I'm not a weight weenie, just stating the facts! Carrying bikes - over railway bridges, farm gates, styles, onto trains, etc etc - you do get do get a feel for the weight.

3 alerts, alot of brew last night, andt I don't remember posting. I was expecting worst here!

 

[Nigeyy]

Yeah.... I'm not so sure.

I always wince a little bit when someone brings up the "steel-is-better-cos-you-can-get-it-welded" argument; I mean, think it through..... Number one, if you are touring in Outer Uzwankistan, chances are you going to be miles from the capital, Up Yourstoo (the place where skilled iron working artisans reside). And when that frame brakes on that really remote trail, I just figure the chances of finding a welder are just going to be somewhat remote. Even assuming you do find a welder, are you really going to trust that weld on that beloved steel frame to someone who ordinarily uses a welder to turn half a Wartburg into a trailer pulled by water buffalo? (and even if you do, think of the money involved to get that frame professionally refinished as well). Number two: and be honest now, how many of us really are going to be touring in Outer Uzwankistan? Chances are you will be touring in an area where you can get a replacement bike pretty economically in comparison to what you need for a frame repair. Number three: and how often does your frame break?

It's not that I'm against steel frames (my tourer is a steel frame too), just that for me -and I'm guessing the majority of people who tour -you're better off getting a touring bike that fits and is fit for purpose, regardless of frame material (well, within reason, obviously spaghetti doesn't work, but we're talking generally recognized bicycle frame materials). And while it's argued by many people that aluminium is a harsher ride -let me just say the harshest riding frame I ever had was steel, and one of the smoothest aluminium (really). I honestly think ride quality is determined far more by design, wheel build, tyres, tyre pressure, saddle, etc. than by frame material alone.

Bottom line for me is that frame material by itself just isn't important to me -it's the whole bicycle you have to look at!

Steel for a bike like that. Better ductile lifespan, more likely to find a steel welder if the frame breaks while riding in Uzwankistan, and transmits less high frequency harshness to your contact points. Within certain limits weight isn't such a serious consideration on a tourer intended for intergalactic miles.

 

[Gravity Aided]

You just never know where you and your bicycle may end up. Some parts (okay, many parts) of the US resemble Outer Uzwankistan, especially the Git Valley. You, as a traveler, might think there are no welding artisans here in Normal, but as a local tribesman I can assure you there are. Finding them another matter.