Excellent question, although some might argue that this is a religious thread! I'll state right up front that I am a big proponent of steel. I'll try to keep it short, and not ramble too much.

Steel is stronger and more compliant, hence more comfortable to ride on than aluminum. Steel is heavier than aluminum. Steel will rust. Steel is less expensive than aluminum.

Aluminum is stiffer than steel. Alumimun is lighter than steel. Aluminum is more expensive than steel. Aluminum won't rust, but it can oxidize, and it gets stress fractures. A steel frame might bend, an aluminum frame will crack. Given sufficient impact, either can break.

An interesting note: Almost ALL steel frames come with lifetime warranties. All aluminum frames come with a five year maximum warranty. Why? Because it is known that over time your aluminum frame WILL fail.

If you are small and light, you might find that a steel bike offers great quality and value, as well as greater comfort than aluminum. A bigger, heavier rider will possibly dislike steel because the flex in the steel robs power.

Carbon forks and seatstays have made aluminum better(the carbon absorbs all the nasty vibrations from the road), but it is still not a lifetime bike. For my money, I'd go with steel, or buck up and buy titanium. Aluminum and carbon are nice, especially for those looking for a reason to buy a new bike every few years.

Bottom line: Most people buy aluminum because it is lighter than steel, and we all think we are good enough riders that having a bike weigh two pounds less makes a difference. No offense to those who are good enough that two pounds DOES make a difference, but most of us just think we are.

To make an analogy: Steel is the love that binds the universe together in wonderful continuity, while aluminum, er, sucks.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the synopsis.....a few questions.....Is there a specific weight for a specific metal (ie reynolds 853) that one might find the power robbing flex and does the type of steel make a differance here?........Without a carbon fork, is aluminum not a harsher ride?.....What about steel with a carbon fork?

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

just a brief aside, my 675 dollar (msrp) ox platinum steel frame weighs 3.25 lbs, actual. not many alu frames are, in truth, much under that - none are 2 lbs under, for sure. i seriously doubt any are even a single lb under.

I have an aluminum frame with a lifetime warranty.

The different steel alloys, such as 853, 631, 525, and the 'boutique' steels, differ in their strengths and weights. I'm not a metallurgist, but the amount of vanadium, chromium, manganese, etc, will create variations in the characteristics of a given alloy, yielding a tube that will provide a certain ride. Since different builders have different goals and ideals, they use different alloys.

As far as flex is concerned, steel is compliant. It will bend before it breaks, so the greater the power applied to the metal, the more it flexes. Hence a big or powerful rider may lose power to frame flex.
Aluminum is stiff, and transfers power more effectively because it does not flex. This also contributes to ride harshness. While steel absorbs vibrations, aluminum does not. The different alloys of steel and aluminum will have different characteristics, so yes, some aluminum will be a smoother ride than other aluminum, and likewise for steel. but in general, steel is a more comfortable ride.

Where carbon fiber comes in is that it has damping characteristics, so a carbon fork will make for a nicer ride. I am riding a Lemond Buenos Aires, which is 853 Select (meaning the rear triangle is made of 525) and has an Ouzo Comp carbon fork.

I think it rides very nice. It rides more comfortably on the road than my aluminum dual suspension mountain bike because it absorbs the high frequency vibrations of the road that the mountain bike's suspension does not.

So a carbon fork should make any bike more comfortable(and probably lighter, too).

I know I'm going to take a beating once the frame builders chime in, but I stand by my opinion that steel is better.

JeffJ: What kind of bike is it? I have researched a bunch of road and mountain bikes in the past three years, and never found any aluminum bikes with lifetime warranties.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

Steel and titanium ride less harsh than aluminium. Pure and simple. This is my experience with the three materials. I'm sure that carbon does also but I've never owned a carbon bike.

The difference is barely noticeble on a short ride but go for a century ride on each then your body will notice a difference. You'll feel more beat up on aluminium.

It's not just about material because design is even more important. A well designed aluminium bike can ride nicer than a poorly designed steel one. An aluminium frame can be cushioned by a carbon fork and seat post. However, if all factors are equal, the steel or titanium bike (or carbon) will always ride less harsh than aluminium. Go test an aluminium and carbon Giant TCR for a comparison.

The big advantage of aluminium for the tri geek are the aero tubes. Once I retire from tri the P2K will be on ebay and I'm sure that I'll never own another aluminium bike.

Then there is also the style factor. Retro steel bikes with lugs fall into the same catagory IMO as wooden boats and classic British sports cars.

Sorry, gotta post. This thread is getting borderline offensive. Among many other things, the assertion that aluminum is stiffer than steel is completely and totally false. Look it up. This is not a matter of opinion. Have you ever noticed that bikes made of different materials often have different shapes (in terms of tube size and shape, or, not that you can tell by looking at it, thickness)? Let's not make up qualities to associate with certain raw materials. Instead, shouldn't we try to understand how different materials are suited to different, albeit similar, applications?

Otherwise, let's start similar assinine discussions. What's better, asphalt or concrete? What's better for an athlete, being tall or short? Which is a better subject of a painting, a sunrise or a sunset?

I'm certainly no expert, thought I do have a BS meter. I have steel bikes that are comfortable and that I love to ride. (for well over 100 miles) I have an aluminum bike that is comfortable and that I love to ride. (for well over 100 miles)

All I can do is add a link to an article (from Sheldon Brown) that I thought was quite good at expressing the difference of these materials in plain English. I can't even attempt to regurgitate the little I was exposed to in college. All I know is that the cycling community seems to accept a science that is completely unrelated to the accepted science of the rest of the world.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

Ultimately, the human language is imperfect, and we use words that are perhaps not entirely correct when trying to describe something we experience qualitatively.

The Sheldon Brown article is an excellent read. Thanks for posting it.

My inference(which may be incorrect) is that Sheldon is saying that from a metallurgical standpoint aluminum is not stiffer than steel, however due to the characteristcs of the metal aluminum frames are built with larger tubes and different geometry, which may yield a less compliant frame overall. Therefore, the characteristics of the metal determine how it is used in a particular application, which is effectively the same thing, from my point of view.

As a cyclist, I don't care if scientifically aluminum the metal is not stiffer than steel the metal. I care about whether a bike frame made out of aluminum is more comfortable, faster, lighter, and better than one made out of steel.

If I ride 100 miles on my steel bike, I don't lose feeling in my toes, fingers, and, er, other parts. On the admittedly few aluminum bikes I have ridden, a ride of 2-3 hours is all I can stand.

So perhaps the science doesn't all add up. But my experience of riding aluminum frames as opposed to steel frames is that the steel bikes are more comfortable to ride. Perhaps you've ridden better aluminum bikes than I have.

Your asphalt vs. concrete analogy is excellent. If I'm building a road, concrete might be a better choice, but if I'm running on concrete, I'm going to get shin splints faster than if I'm running on asphalt, and my legs are going to hurt the next day.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we are just starting to really learn how to build bikes out of aluminum, carbon, and titanium. The bikes of those materials designed and built today are far superior to bikes made just 15-20 years ago. Compare an old Vitus or old Cannondale with just about any top-line aluminum bike today. There is no comparison in overall ride qualities. Heck, compare an early 1900s steel frame to frames of today, or even the 50s for that matter. Steel is a relatively mature frame material. Differences these days are incremental at best. By contrast, aluminum, carbon and titanium bikes are making relatively large leaps in design and quality. Today I can find bikes of all these frame materials that are either equally outstanding or pitiful. I personally wouldn't write off any bike simply on the basis of frame material. You've got to be a student of the process, ask the right questions, and look for the right design based on what you are looking at. Generalistic statements such as "aluminum is stiffer" or "steel is heavier" simply can't be applied in making an educated decision about a particular bike. I don't mean you have to go visit factories, as Slowman seems fond of doing, though that would help educate you. But while you will find some good information over these forums, you are more likely to get biased opinions like jmorrissey's. He clearly prefers steel bikes but his reasoning is far more impassioned than factual. I'm sure I've been as guilty of making imprecise or unfactual statements at some point.

>>If I ride 100 miles on my steel bike, I don't lose feeling in my toes, fingers, and, er, other parts. On the admittedly few aluminum bikes I have ridden, a ride of 2-3 hours is all I can stand. <<

I would suggest you are improperly fit on the aluminum bike.

I have a steel bike. I love it, it fits ME, it feels great whether I'm being drug around France 30-50 miles a day or 108 miles over some hilly Cali roads. I have an aluminum bike. I love it, it fits ME, it feels great, no matter a 40K TT or multiple +100 mile rides.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

Well, I DID say that I thought this was a religious thread. :)

---

------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, brother!

Thanks for the link...It was an interesting read....Did anyone read the deflection study done by Damon Rinard?......I have a question in to Sheldon Brown about the study......I would think he would have needed to place the vector force in the opposite direction to simulate and actual rider and may have gotten different results due to triangle design.

---

---

KEEP ON TRI-NG

alright gator, lemme chime in here. there are often issues of semantic in this age old debate which muddy the water. words like comfort, better, harsh, and such do not convey the issues accurately. "charcter", is perhaps a better term. materials do have certain characteristics inherent to them, no matter what people say. steel is a materail you can make a spring from, or a bell. you cannot make either from aluminum, but you CAN make something stiffer and lighter than you can from steel with it. so then, indeed bike frames fom either will reflect the charateristic of the material - to me this is the most silly aspect of the " it doesn't make a difference" argument. how can it not make a difference ?? anyway, there are then, not things which are better about either, but rather gropus of broad characteristics whichare indeed true in a grouping sense. to be sure, there is some overlap these days but that does not negate the group identity as a whole.

if you truly do not yet know what these subtle difference are they are better felt than talked about. to me the easiest way to feel these differences are with mountain bikes. find a fine steel bike and a nice light stiff alu one and a washboardy hill. pump up the tires and then ride up and coast down on each a few times. hold the bars lightly and stand lightly, to feel for what the frame is doing. stomp the things up the hill, and finesse them. note things like how fast the bike shoots forward, whether it " winds up" as you climb, how it reacts over the washboard. how your fingertips feel the harmonics of the gravel thru the frame, etc. now, try to tell yourself there is no difference ( !!!). these same fellings are present, in a muted sense, on the road. decide which you like better, and use that as a starting point. maybe you love the quivering harmonic vibrations on the down, and the springy wind up style of climbing - if so a smaller diameter light steel bike will be perfect for you - a compact columbus foco strong, say. maybe you live for the way one bike literally shoots out from under you when you stomp - a light large diameter alu bike will fill this bill - maybe a klein. want both? maybe a wicked hell light and fine guage scandium bike - how 'bout a yaqui. . . . . . want it to last? perhaps a OS steel machine such as a custom waterford or IF.

bikes ride different, and what they are made of is a huge part of that.

"I would suggest you are improperly fit on the aluminum bike.

I have a steel bike. I love it, it fits ME, ,,,,,. I have an aluminum bike. I love it, it fits ME, "



Sorry Cathy, but I've gotta call you out on this one. It may not just be a question of fit. From your previous posts I've had the impression you have Cervelo P2K and Prodigy???? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if so imagine an aluminium Prodigy and a steel P2K.

IMO, there is a difference.

"From your previous posts I've had the impression you have Cervelo P2K and Prodigy???? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if so imagine an aluminium Prodigy and a steel P2K. "

This comment I don't get, cerveloguy. Of course there is a difference in the materials. They're not interchangeable. A bike has to be designed with the material in mind. But that doesn't mean that all bikes made of material X are better/worse/lighter/more comfortable than all bikes made of material Y. If my Klein were made of Steel, with those oversized tubes I'd be rattled to death. Thank goodness that design uses aluminum. If my Colnago Super were made of AL, it would a flimsy piece of crap. But, this doesn't mean that because my Colnago is made of steel (which IS stiffer than AL), that is stiffer than my AL Klein. In fact it's the opposite. It's the design coupled with the material used that gives the bikes its characteristics.

true enuf, pooks. but - no aluminum bike will ever dance harmonically over rough pavement like your super does, no matter the design. and no steel bike will ever approach the weight/stiffness ratio of your klien. in these respects material will always remain beholden to its own.

I have ridden every major material of bike, save ti. Let me tell you this: it has more to do with the geometry. We're not talking just seat and head angles, but wheelbase, trail, and all sorts of numbers. I am not going to go into the finer pionts of frame geometry, as I admittedly have a lot to learn about these things.

What I can tell you is that you can have a light, stiff aluminum frame or get a heavy piece of flexy junk aluminum frame. To make aluminum stiffer and lighter, you must use larger diametre tubes, which can make ride quality suffer.

BUT- the comfort is in the top tube. I have been told this a few times, and it only sunk in when I piloted a couple of different frames. I think one of the reasons why good aero bikes do not have an aero top tube is that you would make the bike behave too laterally stiff and not very vertically compliant. This is the same reason why you would not want an oversize top tube (unless you were a big, strong, powerful rider).

Lengthen the seat stays, and you will have a more compliant ride. This can be done in steel or aluminum. You can do it with a carbon stay, as well.

Steel does have a distinct ride quality that is hard to match. It is a very stiff, yet compliant ride (my 853-tube bike is an example). Aluminum has a ride quality that is hard to match, as well. Both are unique. A well-built example will ride nearly identical, save for nuances observed over a very long ride.

Track bikes are made of both aluminium and steel. Nobody stays away from a steel track frame because of it's reputation of being "flexy and springy". Unless you are a very powerful track rider eith thighs over 35" in dia., you will never flex a track bike.

BUT (yes, another all-caps "BUT") - tubing diametres and geometry, as well the material choice (chosen for its properties for a particular use) make the largest difference. Unless you are comparing Scandium to 531 tubing, steel and aluminum, depending on ride quality desired can be built pretty closely, even within a pound or less between each other. It all comes to tubing and the competence of the frame builder in getting the right combination together.

"This comment I don't get, cerveloguy"

I guess what I am try to say is that although I realize that fit and frame design are important factors, IMO different materials also have different ride characteristics.

The best example I can think of is my wife's new titanium frame bike which has titanium seat post and stem, carbon fork and carbon bars. It doesn't fit me but I took it for a ride on some bumpy roads just a few days ago. Felt much smoother than does my aluminium TCR even though the fit is too small for me.

I'm currently building up a "comfort bike" as this winter's garage project. It's a classic lugged steel Miele frame made of Ishawata 022 quadruple butted tubing. I'm going to upgrade with a modern groupo and carbon fork/seat post. I'll use this bike for centuries and long rides where comfort is a consideration but will keep my P2K for tris/TT and my aluminium TCR for Tuesday/Thursday night hammer and hill rides with our roadie group.

I'm sure that fit has got to be the most important thing, with geometry coming in close behind. However, I have to believe that the material has to make a big difference. If it didn't, we would still be flying airplanes mades totally out of steel, and automobile frame technology wouldn't be where it is today. Certain materials must be better for certain applications, just like in cycling. Touring, TT, track, our casual riding (is there such a thing?) all would call for different fit, geometry and material. So much technology goes into bikes nowadays that no two bikes with the same material will ride just the same and the only way to decide is to research, price check, evaluate your racing style and training habits, ride as many as you can and then make a gut decision.

I also believe that a steel bike with a cool paint job must go faster than a high tech but ugly bike of any other material.

I have a lifetime warrenty on my Klein Q Pro Carbon...Alum with carbon seat stays

Also as far as design. Guys like Klein manipulate the tubes so much to get the benefit of Alum and comfort. If you have a chance look at the top tube of a 2003 Klein,It goes from an oversized oval(horizontally) to an oversized oval (vertically) to where it meets the seat tube. Same with the down tube. Oversized oval to almost a triangle with which almost looks like a flat spot bend on it(Thought it was bent when I first got the bike). It fits me and is very comfortable. I had a steel Bianchi(80's)and I think its more comfortable.Then at my size,190 and a 58cm I was told the bike ride would be very different if I was 150lbs on a 54cm. Also is the consideration of the wheels on the bike,this again changes everything. I know the original thread is "Steel vs Alum" There just is not such a simple answer. Its not a specific enough question.

Finally....I have ridden a 150 on my alum Klein.. I honestly do not understand the "alum is harsh" issue. Never been a problem....Now finding the right seat for your body,I wish that was easy