I have posted this before that you may find useful.
You do of course find many different versions of each type of frame material but here are some very general guidelines that I have tried to put across in a plain and simple manner, they are my opinions based on 26 years as a club cyclist and 20 years as a specialist cycle retailer:
Comparison of frame materials
Aluminium Alloy: Often simply referred to as ‘Alloy’ Light, cheap, reasonably robust although not as comfortable when compared to the others, which is why most will have carbon forks. Alloy supposedly has the most performance drop off, which in fairness only really effects a racing cyclist where a few percent reduction in performance can make the difference (especially in their heads) of winning or coming second, in reality that applies more to the older lighter frames when Pro’ riders used extremely light versions (now most pro teams use Carbon), the modern budget frames use a heavier, more robust alloy and are of course aimed at a different style of riding. They are now the most common option in the mid range and upwards frame sets, fairly robust, as they will normally dent as apposed to crack. Normally the price dictates a purchase of a frame built in alloy, that does not mean that you will not be satisfied, you will see quite a few older frames still being ridden by club cyclists who find them perfectly adequate, plus many don’t have any complaints re’ comfort or performance drop off. Although most refer to these frames in general terms as ‘alloy’ if we are being pedantic then strictly speaking this is wrong, as steel is an alloy of carbon and iron, titanium is normally aluminum and vanadium, for example Airborne (now
Van Nicholas ) use mainly 3% Aluminium, 2.5% Vanadium and as such called
Ti 3-2.5 in most of their models.
Carbon Comfortable, very light, efficient at transferring energy into propulsion as the material does not flex as much as other materials. Although strong they can be delicate, where other materials dent, Carbon will often crack, a friend of mine had a Colnago Carbon C40 that he had just finished cleaning in the garden, he stepped back to admire his pride and joy, just out of reach it caught a gust of wind, fell over, caught the chain stay on the rockery and cracked. As such not normally the choice for audax/touring bikes where robustness may be preferred. Most common rider is either a racing cyclist or someone who still likes to ride a racing bike down the cafe on a sunny Sunday morning, especially when you are feeling a little bit frisky in the speed department (as I get older this happens less, normally one week in May and one in August, except of course when I have a tail wind), plus it can be rather pleasing to sit with your mates remembering how good you once was and how super your new bike is; no harm in that, it's what cycling is all about
Steel: Comfortable, very durable (if built correctly) with low performance drop off with age. These days only really used by club cyclist when the frame is built by a craftsmen, you are really paying for the workman ship. Many cyclist like to know who built their bike, they like the fact that they are having something built often to their own specification, you can personalise your frame with your own braze on items, light bosses, extra bottle bosses etc, you can even chose your own colour. In the past all top quality frames were purchased this way, as it was how you got exactly what you wanted, both in quality and especially frame size. The old diamond shape frame being less adaptable interms of variations in riding position than the modern sloping top tube frames; even Lance Armstrong uses an off the peg frame size. Although I fall into this category, as in uses as steel frame, not Lance Armstrong, I have to admit that modern off the peg frames are now so good both interms of production quality and the flexibility that the modern geometry gives you to achieve the perfect riding position, that the necessity to have a bike made to measure is less of an issue; but I still like them, I have some that are twenty years old and still going strong. Normally purchased by traditional types who still relate to when this was the way things were and if it was good enough then well......Ok Ok, I admit riders like me and even.
Titanium: Becoming more popular, virtually no performance drop as they don’t even rust, comfortable, light, yet robust. Performance wise not quite as responsive as carbon or alloy (alloy when new that is), although really it is that not far off, some pro riders now even use Titanium like
Magnus Baksted a former Paris Roubaix winner, especially in races where comfort can become an issue, for example over the cobbles of the Paris Roubaix, as riders are bashed about so much it can lead to fatigue. The down side is that Titanium is very hard to work/build with; so most don't! On the upside because of this the workman ship simply has to be of top quality and it shows, Titanium frames do look and are very well made. Most common used when someone wants a fast, responsive, light comfortable (ideal for longer day rides/audax), yet robust bike and of course where price is not so much of an issue.
Most titanium manufacturers use the 3AL 2.5V grade, the 6/4 grade is usually only used for pure race bikes, it is also as a finished frame more expensive, as the raw material is more difficult to both make into tubes and then to build. Many also believe the 3AL 2.5V grade is more suitable, especially for Audax frames where riders are not looking for something quite as stiff as a full on race bike.
Comparison of fork materials
As for forks nearly all the quality road frames made in the materials above will now use Carbon, with the possible exception of the quality steel Audax/touring frames that will still often be specified with steel forks. As for the other frame materials listed above, alloy frames will seldom use alloy forks as this will give a harsh ride. Titanium frames will not often use Titanium forks as they can vibrate when brake is applied, so carbon again is the norm'. Of course when the main frame is carbon it follows that the forks will be as well.
In all cases where carbon forks are used I would recommend a recognised manufacturer, plus if you do have a crash resulting in a fairly substantial impact then I would always recommend new forks; steel will bend to show the impact, carbon will not.
Paul Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk
Some links you may find useful
www.vannicholas.com/ResLib/WbmTitanium.aspx
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html
http://www.caree.org/bike101framematerials.htm
banjoblues said:
Ok, so reading people's posts I think I now understand that steel is heavier than aluminium which is heavier than carbon which is slightly heavier than air. But, there are suggestions that there are other attributes to the materials which make each preferable in different situations. Can somebody explain please? And the same for forks?
, I think it must be steel...
