Really...How much of a difference can you feel between frame materials?

People on this forum has helped me out tremendously (is that a word?) in the past, so I thought I would get your opinion on this too.

I am going to buy a new tri bike soon and have become obsessed with the differences in different materials. I know it’s all about fit, but assuming two bikes fit the same, is ti or carbon really that much more comfortable than aluminum?

I am mainly looking at higher end bikes like a P3, or a Saber, or a Pican-ti. I have a Blade now, but it’s just too big. With my Spinergy wheels it just rode like a dream. I borrowed a friends aluminum QR with stock wheels and it felt pretty good, but not quite as smooth as my Blade. So this morning I put on a carbon seatpost and switched my Spinergy’s over to her aluminum bike and it was almost as comfortable as my ti bike.

I am a weak, 135 lbs rider, so strength of frame isn’t a big concern. I also live in Ohio, so I don’t think I have to worry about corrosion that much.

So having said all of that, if two bikes fit the same, (for instance, QR makes the exact same frames in both ti and aluminum) is ti really that much more comfortable?

I will mainly be doing shorter rides on the bike, but would consider doing another ironman on it. Also, where I live the roads are pretty smoth anyway, but not like glass.

Jeff

I believe you can notice a difference between steel and aluminium. I’ve never owned carbon or titanium bikes.

However, it’s not just materials. Frame design and fit also play an important part. Also an aluminium frame harshness can be negated considerably with a carbon fork, carbon seat post and tubular tires. My TCR rides very close to my old steel Miele because of this. However, when I upgrade the Miele next winter to carbon fork/seat post, I’d expect it to feel bit smoother than the Giant. TCR owners who have gone from an aluminium frame to a carbon one tell me they notice a difference.

i think fit is one of the all important criteria in ride comfort is fit.

i rode a cadd 3 for one year and did not like it, yet the relacement was also Al and rides like my steel tri bike.

Fit, if its fit correctly, only then can you compare the comfort.

I have a Trek 5500 and a P2K. I can tell a difference between the two, aside from the different set ups (tri v road), in that the Trek “feels” a lot stiffer when I sprint or stand to climb. Other than that the P2K is very comfortable, in fact at times smoother than the Trek. Road bums etc. dont seem to make a squat of difference, both “feel” smooth and both very enjoyable to ride, albeit for different reasons.

I think how the tubes are made may be more important than the material. I have an Aluminum QR Kilo it is very harsh on chip and seal type roads, My P3 is much less harsh, My Trek 5200 carbon is even better but then the angle and style of riding may make some difference.

do this test yourself. hold the bike loosely under the seat, and go walk the bike around on some bumpety pavemant, and cracks, and whatnot. lay a couple fingers up upon the bars lightly. note how the vibration of the road is trnsmitted up to the bar and seat in your fingertips. there is variation, and overlap yes - but each material DOES have a different resonant quality unique to it. this only stands to reason. if you take a hollow tube of each material in a bike tubing gauge and examine each one they will function well as tubes, but behave differently ! ping the tubes on the ground, bounce them on some stairs, ping them with your fingernail, etc etc. you will detect qualities of vibration, resonanace, swing weight, rebound, stiffness and such that is unmistakenly unique to each and soley the result of the material itself. why would these qualities disappear in a bike frame ?? answer, they don’t. each material has its own quality of character, and tho it is subtle it is there. if you wish it to be a part of of your bike buying criteria that is up to you - many people do not and that too is fine - the all make good bikes. answer to your original question - it depends how much you care. think of scotch whiskey - to a person looking get drunk any one is as good as the next and he/she can’t tell the difference anyway. if you want to go deeper you will still be just as drunk, but will maybe have enjoyed the process a little more.

Coming from a Cannondale to a Kestrel I can tell you there is a huge difference. But then again not all carbons or aluminums feel the same. Not all aluminum’s are going to be as uncomfortable as a Cannondale, I guess it depends on aluminum type, tube size, shape etc Best thing is to test ride it. I have test ridden QR Ti bikes and they feel awesome.

I agree with Denewone. While different materials have inherently different resonant frequencies, etc, how the tubes are made and joined plays at least as big a part, if not more, in how the bike feels. As an example, when I was shopping for my road bike I tested a Trek 2300 and a Klein Quantum Pro. Both Aluminum bikes, both with Rolf Vector Pro wheels, in fact Klein is owned by Trek so most of the component spec was the same. The two bikes definitely do not ride the same, though. Kleins attention to tube shaping and welding plays a huge role in how nice that bike feels. With that said, I ended up buying a Trek 5200 anyway, because the feel of the CF frame felt so velvety smooth- better than even a really nice Al frame like the Klein. Did I just contradict myself? Anyway- it’s the material AND the construction that makes the ride.

I think 10 psi of tire pressure makes more difference than changing tubesets within reason. Also, generalizations about material ride qualities are usually never accurate. For instance, the most comfortable ride quality bike I’ve ever been on was aluminum, but the least comfortable ride quality bike was also aluminum. Don’t laugh guys, but fit and position will make much more difference than frame materials.

i will agree with tom that an old vitus or something and a klein would stand apart as an example of material having no coherent character of it own on the surface. however n that example other factors concerning the very nature of tubing and its application are more important - in this case large thin tubes vs smaller thicker ones. either way both ride notably different from a noodly 753 steel or colounbus MAX steel frame - which the same comparison could be drawn from within the steel camp - and also which would prove that each materail has its own character outside that box. seroiusly, fellow tri-geeks i don’t know how this can even be debated when you can feel it walking with the bike for 10 feet. some go “pinggggggggggg”, some go " pock pock", and some go “rumble bounce rumble”. or to amplify the process hop on a mt bike of similar parts and tires and all that and coast down a washboardy trail and then climb back up. if you can’t feel THAT difference consider yourself a lucky man and buy the cheapest lightest one you can and have done. as i say all make fine bikes and none is inherently better than the other. but to say that the material turns off the very nature of its character because it is in a bike frame makes little sense to me. may as well say all fishing poles are the same, or whiskey - for that matter.

let me just add that comfort is another issue entirely, IMHO. bikes that go “pock pock” can be just as comfortable as bikes that go “rumble bounce rumble”. in this area i agree completely with tom. my point is that in being just as comfy they still possess unique qualities related to the material of which they are made ( and joined). again, how could they not ??

I really appreciate everyone’s responses so far. It definitely helps since riding them is not really an option. I think for the first hour they are probably all going to be “pretty” comfortable. I’m more worried about the second hour, and third, and forth…well, you get the point.

Plus I’m about a 49cm, so I don’t think any stores will have a half a dozen 49’s sitting around I can take on 50 mile rides.

Jeff

vita remember that the only reason they decided to make bikes out the insanely expensive titanium to begin with was because it holds the promise of being “as light as alu and ride like steel” due to its inherent makeup. people don’t just make this stuff up - it is within the very mythos of cycling itself. keeping in mind all the fit issues and handling preferences and all that if either of these bikes meet those needs and you still rank the elusive and sublimely subtle unique ride of ti as a desirable trait for you then i think the choice is clear. why even build bikes from ti at all if this quality is not there as some say??

Was told by my mentor,Fit fit fit.But if both fit the same,this is what my mentor told me. I asked why people said alum was harsh when I thought my alum was very comfortable.He said 1)is design.My Klein Q-pro Carb is great.2) your size.He said that a 58cm(auctually 60cm seat tube on a Klein)riden by my sze 6ft 184lbs on a diomond frame gives sufficiant flex.That I would probaly find it harsh if it was a 52cm. Please Tom or someone else corret this post if that is incorrect. To me though is it the bike that speaks to you or not.

Don’t laugh before you take me up on this test.

Lift a bike about 1 foot off of the ground and drop it onto it’s wheels so that they land at about the same time. Note how long it jumps around. Put the same wheelset on another bike and repeat the test. You will see some bikes bounce around like a nut-case on speed in a holding pen, and some absorb and calm the vibrations immediately…sort of like a python digesting a valium addict.

That’s the vibration absorption test, done cheaply.

There’s lots more to frame riding quality than vibration absorption, but the frame that soaks up the vibrations best in this test will also soak them up better on the road.

I have a trek 2500 (the alpha aluminum mode) and bought an OCLV frame. I switched everything from the alum bike over to the new carbon rame, right down to seat/seatpost/stem/wheels (tires and tubes as well) - you get the picture. Heck, the forks are even the same. The bikes are the same size and nearly the exact geometery. I live in an area with crappy roads and can really tell a difference in the ride between the two and have controlled what are usually considered the mitigating factors with my switch over. However, while the alum trek is very stiff and light, I suspect that it does not well as some of the higher quality aluminum bikes on the market. As someone else mentioned above, their best and worse riding frames were aluminum . . .

carbon is da way 2 go. even my wife could tell the difference and i never told the material she was on. don’t get me wrong i have a tcr also but my fav is my carbon goose.

On well constructed frames, many don’t feel the subtle differences until about 100 miles. On one custom frame I had, I knew right away I could never get over 75 miles on it. It was both harsh AND mushy in the BB. A mushy bike can be just as punishing in a way nobody can think of- wasted energy.

My Fox is as great of a bike that I have ever ridden- steel or otherwise. Her construction is probably the biggest factor, though the construction has as much to do with it as does material (can’t build a Fox out of steel- it would be a ship’s anchor). My Trek OCLV was the one I kept comparing everything else to for the longest time. I put many miles on a steel Nishiki that I loved. And I used a rebadged QR Kilo that I loved, too. I have loved many bikes in almost every material.

I would say that the synergy of construction methods and the material are the overall contributing factors in ride quality, not just the material only. This is especially true in carbon fibre.