Steel or alloy frames?

[Crankarm]

Time for my tuppence. 'Quality' does not mean good, the word that preceeds it defines that, or not; 'Good quality' or 'bad quality'. In my view yes, good quality is a seven letter word, Rohloff.

As far as the original question steel is more forgiving than aluminium therefore minimising material stress, and reduces the chance of any problems on a pro-longed multi-country tour. Aluminium, being a relatively soft, and over-rated, is ok in designs where strength is not required, I'm not saying it's not suitable on a bike design but I woudln't travel outside Europe on one. Titanium offers the best of both worlds as it's as strong as steel but the same weight as aluminium, just a same about the price!

Ehhhh .................. how come MTBs and I mean top end mountain bikes, race ones are made of 7005 alumimium and not steel? Downhill MTBs take a tremendous pounding and they are aluminium as are motorbike chassis legs and arms. I would consider a modern aluminium MTB hardtail frame to be a lot strong and lighter than an old steel frame made decades ago. I know which I would prefer to go touring on, the much newer frame of course.

 

[Nigeyy]

mmm. I prefer Marmite (hence avatar) but I will say I've been enjoying Vegemite recently. A bit more easty and less sharp. I'm still for Marmite.

Oh yeah, Shimano and VHS

You're kidding, right?

Vegemite is dung.

 

[overlander]

. I know which I would prefer to go touring on, the much newer frame of course.

Not done much touring I guess, pretty much bet you won't be saying that after a thousand miles.

 

[Crankarm]

Not done much touring I guess, pretty much bet you won't be saying that after a thousand miles.

You reckon ........... 1,000 miles is about 1 month's riding for me plus or minus a few days.

So what are you trying to say? You haven't done much touring, in which case why are you commenting on this thread?

 

[mcshroom]

I love the way people decide others have no experience. Have you ever done 1000 miles on an alu framed bike?

For the record my aluminium framed Dawes vantage has completed three fully loaded tours ranging between 400 and 1600 km (your 1000 miles), two more B&B tours of over 400km each. I have completed a number of (metric and imperial) century

My steel bike is not a tourer, so has only done day rides of up to 240km.

Both bikes have done day rides of over 200km. The aluminium framed bike is perfectly able to do long rides loaded or unloaded comfortably. The steel bike is able to do long rides with reasonable weight or without comfortably.

Despite having a combined load of over 150kg (including myself) and being ridden on rough forestry tracks there is absolutely no structural damage to the tourer.

Just because you like steel touring bikes does not mean it's the only way to do things. My tourer is comfortable because it fits well, in the same way as audax bikes made of steel, aluminium, titanium or carbon fibre are comfortable if they fit well.

You can tour on anything up to a point. This carbon fibre bike is the one that Mike Hall set the unsupported round the world record on earlier this year: -

@Yellow7 On the topic of aluminium being soft, you could not be more wrong. Aluminium is a hard material. It is more rigid and less malleable (soft) than steel. This is why Aluminium bikes are supposed to give a harsher ride but a stiffer frame for power generation. With Titanium, I have heard far too many stories of cracked Ti frames to ever want to tour on one (of the owners I know 5 out of 7 of them have had to have the frames replaced on warranty in the first few years).

 

[overlander]

Well it's simple physics really, steel frames absorb more imperfections from the road, simple as that. Now, tolerance to an aluminium frame is another thing, but let's put it this way 99% of touring bikes have a steel frame for a good reason, I will admit I have not tried touring on an aluminium frame but why buck 200 years of hard gained experience. I do know that my commute to work is much more pleasant on my steel framed panorama than my aluminium trek now multiply that by 10 and once gain steel wins for distance. Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics.

 

[mickle]

You can tour on anything up to a point. This carbon fibre bike is the one that Mike Hall set the unsupported round the world record on earlier this year: -

@Yellow7 On the topic of aluminium being soft, you could not be more wrong. Aluminium is a hard material. It is more rigid and less malleable (soft) than steel. This is why Aluminium bikes are supposed to give a harsher ride but a stiffer frame for power generation. With Titanium, I have heard far too many stories of cracked Ti frames to ever want to tour on one (of the owners I know 5 out of 7 of them have had to have the frames replaced on warranty in the first few years).

A round the world record attempt is a race, not a tour.
Aluminum is very much softer than steel. Don't mistake frame rigidity for strength.

 

[mickle]

Wow, a full blown 'steel vs aluminum' thread, haven't seen one of these for ages!

 

[Crankarm]

Well it's simple physics really, steel frames absorb more imperfections from the road, simple as that. Now, tolerance to an aluminium frame is another thing, but let's put it this way 99% of touring bikes have a steel frame for a good reason, I will admit I have not tried touring on an aluminium frame but why buck 200 years of hard gained experience. I do know that my commute to work is much more pleasant on my steel framed panorama than my aluminium trek now multiply that by 10 and once gain steel wins for distance. Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics.

Simple physics really ................... are you a physicist? You're not a metallagist which would mean you were more qualified to pontificate.

Have you carried out any studies or taken your opinions from those carried out by others?

99% of touring frames have a steel frame for good reason. Source of your statement? Have you carried out a survey? I tour but it is not using a touring frame. Does this mean I am excluded as a cycle tourist from your classification?

Why haven't you tried touring with an aluminium frame? Surely for thoroughness and completeness of your pontificating you should have done? And how about carbon fibre or bamboo frames?

Are you 200 years old ???

How come you multiply by 10? How does steel win again for distance? This statement is extremely vague.

Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics

Ahhh ........ simple physics again. Right you are .

 

[srw]

why buck 200 years of hard gained experience

Napoleon's aluminium touring bike broke a tube on the way into Moscow and he couldn't find a local who could fix it, so he had to resort to horse-riding to get home.

 

[Bodhbh]

Napoleon's aluminium touring bike broke a tube on the way into Moscow and he couldn't find a local who could fix it, so he had to resort to horse-riding to get home.

Ha.

My 2004 Aluminium Rockhopper lasted 12-20k touring/commuting miles before snapping at the dropout. I dunno if that's good, bad or indifferent. The Tubus logo rack on the back bent out of shape first, so it had had a fair battering. Then again, the logo rack is steel and it was a simple matter to bend it back - it lives on on the next bike. Maybe that says something.

My new frame is a steel Inbred MTB. I chose steel so it could have some bottle mounts stuck on it by a frame builder and maybe if the same thing happens and something snaps it it can be fixed.

But does it really matter much in Europe, or even outside Europe if you can get a new frame shipped out?

 

[Nigeyy]

I really do think there's far more to a ride than the frame material.

I can attest that I had far more ride discomfort from an old Fuji steel frame (shook my fillings!) than from my Cannondale CAAD4 frame for example. I also think you have to factor in frame design, wheel build and tyres, saddle, rider weight, terrain, etc, etc.

Generalizing on frame material just isn't valid in my experience.

Well it's simple physics really, steel frames absorb more imperfections from the road, simple as that. Now, tolerance to an aluminium frame is another thing, but let's put it this way 99% of touring bikes have a steel frame for a good reason, I will admit I have not tried touring on an aluminium frame but why buck 200 years of hard gained experience. I do know that my commute to work is much more pleasant on my steel framed panorama than my aluminium trek now multiply that by 10 and once gain steel wins for distance. Now as you say whatever works for you but that's more a case of what you are willing to put up with as again simple physics.

 

[Brains]

Napoleon's aluminium touring bike broke a tube on the way into Moscow and he couldn't find a local who could fix it, so he had to resort to horse-riding to get home.

If you are going to be picky, he did Moscow to Warsaw by horse drawn sledge and then by horse drawn carriage to Paris. Even if his aluminium top tube had not broken, given the state of the roads and the snow,horse power was the best option available

 

[mcshroom]

A round the world record attempt is a race, not a tour.
Aluminum is very much softer than steel. Don't mistake frame rigidity for strength.

Softness (or more accurately hardness) is the deformation potential of a material. A harder material is not necessarily stronger, only less malleable.

Strength is an entirely different set of characteristics of a material.

 

[avalon]

Interesting to see people's views. Seeing that carbon fibre bike has made me re-think my own ideas about what a touring bike should be. I would love to have one for faster lightweight tours but I think I would still stay with steel if I were to do a heavily loaded, remote area tour.