What are the main differences between steel, aluminium and Carbon Fibre bikes?

[Manonabike]

Plenty has been said about materials but nobody is saying the difference a modern design bike makes to the comfort of a rider. Most old steel bike have a flat top tube while most modern bikes have a top tube angled.

 

[Rob3rt]

Plenty have been said about materials but nobody is saying the difference a modern design bike makes to the comfort of a rider. Most old steel bike have a flat top tube while most modern bikes have a top tube angled.

You could go two ways with this as far as I can speculate. Fashion/aesthetics or possible benefit's to frame rigidity.

A compact frame will give more stand over height though, if you count this as a comfort factor.

 

[Drago]

Beyond certain material, production and transportation costs, the actual selling price of a frame is largely irrelevant. Retail pricing is not (in this context) a good predictor of frame quality.

I did say "as a general rule". Price isn't an absolute indicator, but suffice to say the World isn't bristling with top quality carbon frames at cheapo prices.

Plenty have been said about materials but nobody is saying the difference a modern design bike makes to the comfort of a rider. Most old steel bike have a flat top tube while most modern bikes have a top tube angled.

Yep, you could make a frame out of Uranium, or Royal Jelly, or anything sexy, but if it's design is somewhere south of a garden gate then it'll still be crap.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I prefer a good modern steel frame, bluff old traditionalist that I am. It's simply that of all the bikes that come through the workshop I've never ridden anything in ally or carbon that's as comfortable as my trusty steel tourer.

I think the clue is in the word "Tourer".

 

[black'n'yellow]

I did say "as a general rule". Price isn't an absolute indicator, but suffice to say the World isn't bristling with top quality carbon frames at cheapo prices.

that's true I guess, but the most obvious example of 'retail price' mis-match is comparing the Ribble Stealth to the De Rosa R838 - same frame, different logo. The Ribble frame can be had for less than £500 - but I doubt if you would get the De Rosa frame for anywhere close to that....

 

[PpPete]

Some good information about different frame materials a little way down this page.

 

[asterix]

Plenty have been said about materials but nobody is saying the difference a modern design bike makes to the comfort of a rider. Most old steel bike have a flat top tube while most modern bikes have a top tube angled.

My steel bike is a compact built by Roberts to be a good hill-climber. It replaced my 531 horizontal TT bike which had too much BB flex for optimum hill climbing, and it is a lovely bike to climb hills on. Being custom it fits me as well as a good pair of shoes. If it wasn't 36C outside I'd would be off on it now!

 

[lulubel]

I heard a few times that the difference between a new bike and the old steel bikes are huge? Is it the weight difference? Or is it the frame design? Or perhaps modern parts make the difference?

What would be the main differences between steel, aluminium and Carbon Fibre frames equipped with identical wheels and group set? Other that weight which would offer the most comfortable ride?

If you're comparing new with old, then a newer design frame is likely to perform better and be more comfortable to ride while it's doing it than an older frame, regardless of the material used in its construction. (Of course, there will be exceptions to this, but I haven't come across any personally.)

If you're simply comparing new bikes in different materials, the differences in performance and comfort are much smaller, although alu generally gives a relatively harsh ride (which is why alu bikes often have carbon forks). I think choice of frame material is mostly down to personal preference, and you just need to ride bikes made from different materials to find out which you like best.

 

[overlander]

If you're simply comparing new bikes in different materials, the differences in performance and comfort are much smaller.

I have both a Reynolds 725 frame and aluminium frame both on same tyres and there is a world of difference. The steel frame is so much nicer to ride it soaks up bumps like their not there. I still think that the change to aluminium on cheaper bikes was just for marketing purposes. A cheap suspension aluminium bike or a cheap steel bike there is just no contest. For 70% of bikes sold aluminium is a step back in my opinion.

 

[lulubel]

I have both a Reynolds 725 frame and aluminium frame both on same tyres and there is a world of difference. The steel frame is so much nicer to ride it soaks up bumps like their not there. I still think that the change to aluminium on cheaper bikes was just for marketing purposes. A cheap suspension aluminium bike or a cheap steel bike there is just no contest. For 70% of bikes sold aluminium is a step back in my opinion.

Personally, I prefer steel as a frame material too, but I think you misunderstood my post.

The OP didn't make it clear whether he was comparing old bikes with new bikes, or new bikes made from different frame materials, so I answered both. I still maintain that the difference between 2 new frames of different materials is much less than the difference between an old frame and a new one, regardless of the materials used.

 

[overlander]

Ahhh my mistake yes I get what you mean now. I'm with you steel all the way for my touring bike not to fussed with my commuter. But on saying that 80% of the time I'll grab the panorama unless really foul weather.

 

[RhythMick]

I considered steel vs Alu for some time before I bought my Planet X Kaffenback steel framed all rounder. Love it, nice comfortable ride, takes anything I throw it at and my rides often take in both road and roughish trail along the way so an all rounder suits me.

 

[Garz]

The different materials (although these days not so much noticeable difference compared to bygone days as lulubel highlighted) suit what activities you want to achieve. Long distance, steel/Titanium come into their own, racing - carbon. Alu not always the case but is reserved for the value purchase.

 

[TheDoctor]

I've got bikes mad of alloy, steel, Ti and carbon.
I'd be hard pressed to tell you which was which if I was riding them blindfold.
It's much more to do with frame design and how well it's made, rather than the bare details of the frame material. You could probably make more difference to the feel of the bike by playing with different wheels and tyres.

 

[fenlandpsychocyclist]

My Trek 1.2a has a much smoother ride than my Coyote (avocet) even though both have alloy frames.
Also, even though the trek seems to absorb poor road surfaces better, the "swing" from the bottom bracket
under power is far less than the coyote.
So the trek is soft where its needed, but also rigid where its needed ... unlike the coyote which is a dog of a bike to ride!