Do various frame materials have inherently different ride qualities?

[slowgoing]

Let’s say I go to a builder who can make frames out of a variety of materials. Like Tom Kellogg (titanium or steel) or Carl Strong (titanium, steel and aluminum), only add carbon to their available choices. And I ask them to make me identical geometry frames having certain ride qualities out of each material. Will those frames ride completely alike? Or are there inherent properties of each material that will make them ride or feel differently from one another? And if that is the case, aren’t certain people generally going to prefer the ride or feel of a certain material, regardless of the ride qualities that a particular builder builds into the frame?

[Peter B]

Yes, the materials you mention all have different characteristics. That said, in the hands of the right builder, they can all be assembled to create whatever ride you desire.

Determine your fit. Pick a builder. Tell him/her what you want the bike to do and share the fit numbers. If you *really* want a particular material, choose the appropriate builder. Wait. Ride and enjoy.


Peter

[fierte_poser]

Will those frames ride completely alike?

NO

Or are there inherent properties of each material that will make them ride or feel differently from one another?

YES

And if that is the case, aren’t certain people generally going to prefer the ride or feel of a certain material, regardless of the ride qualities that a particular builder builds into the frame?

They MAY, or they MIGHT appreciate the differences in way that does not involve ranking one material against another. Life can get boring if you eat the same bowl of Grape Nuts every morning.

[bnewt07]

The point of using different materials (or indeed combining them in a single frame) is to maximise the key characteristics of that material for the design and intended purpose of the frame.

I'm sure somebody could make a frame feel more or less identical with any of the main materials, but frankly why should they!

I would not want my bikes to all feel the same, they all do different jobs.

[keno]

here's an illuminating piece by the late Sheldon Brown that addresses your question in detail.

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

keno

[dekindy]

Yes, you mentioned Carl Strong. I am surprised you have not seen the video on his website. Watch the video.

http://strongframes.com/news/hmbs_08/?PHPSESSID=f81c30934a0d4869ee21ceb7f1fd7fa3

[TAW]

I think that a builder can make one material ride differently depending on how it's built. I've had carbon frames that ride very harshly and some which ride very comfortably, and ALL of them with the same wheels and tires (same pressure).

However, I do think that materials have inherent properties which make them different in the way they feel. So I think that 2 frames made with the same geos and same "purposes" but with 2 different materials would feel differently.

[1centaur]

I think sometimes these debates get messed up by approaching the question from different perspectives and not admitting that.

The way a frame of a given geometry rides will depend on the inherent properties of its materials, the way its tubes are joined, the construction of its tubes, and its weight (which may well be a result of the former three in large measure).

Given the thousands of ways one can lay up a CF tube versus the few ways one can construct a metal tube, due to their inherent properties, and given further that the method of joining CF tubes (glue and lugs, glue and CF wrap, monocoque) will not be the way that metal tubes are joined, and given that vibration transmits through CF differently from metal (and metals differently from each other, but less so) it is not rational to expect that a metal frame will feel exactly like a CF frame if it is just put in the hands of the right builder. Does anyone think any metal builder has analyzed all properties of even one CF frame and then fiddled with his own available options to recreate that CF feel? And if he has not, how could anyone claim that in the hands of the right builder any material can be made to feel the same - it's never been done, so why claim it can always be done? Add in the element of weight ("yes, Mr. Brilliant Builder, I'd like a 920-gram aluminum frame, size 56, that feels like my Scott Addict - thanks") and the comparison gets even more strained.

The answer is in the semantics of "feels like" and "rides like." Those two undefined terms undermine common understanding.

I may (sometimes) ride along thinking about every little resonance, every bit of comfort over certain kinds of surfaces, every sound (which has a psychological effect on ride feel), every ounce of energy rewarded on the last hill of the day as my underpowered legs search for speed, but many people don't. I may have 11 bikes I rotate between on the same routes many times so I can pick up frame material characteristics across different levels of physical exhaustion/effort/speed, but most people don't have the time or stable to do that kind of long-term comparison. In particular, people who race or love hard group rides are much more focused on the tool: is it stiff enough, is it light enough for their more powerful legs, does it track right through tight corners, is the front/back balance good for out of the saddle climbing? That way of looking at bikes is just less sensitive to subtleties of feel, and for them a good stiff bike with the right geometry can come in any material, because the differences they care about are 3% variances and the variances I care about are 1% variances (let's say). I care about sensations, they care about effectiveness, I'm thinking Swiss chocolate they are thinking chocolate. To them, any good builder can create the right tool for the job, and they are right about that. To me, CF rides differently, which I figured out on my frame material test rides 7 years ago and has remained true for me thousands of miles on lots of frames later. Nobody on the planet can make a steel bike feel like a carbon fiber bike pound for pound close to the UCI limit if I am focused on every little thing. Many people on the planet don't care, don't notice, or have no reason to care.

So, both answers are correct, just from different perspectives. Anybody asking the question needs to figure out their perspective (particularly on the definition of comfort) and not assume that any given poster on the "do materials matter" topic has the same perspective.

[dekindy]

IMHO I like the ride of steel better because that is what I have always ridden. Just test riding carbon it felt different. Not better, just different. If I had to put my finger on it it seemed that maybe the carbon soaked up road chatter better but steel seemed to take bigger shocks more comfortably due to it's springier, livelier feel. Or it could be my imagination. I am not convinced that if a blind test could be arranged, like maybe wrapping all the frames in something so you could not see the material, if many cyclists could consistently identify the frame material that they were riding on.

I have never ridden modern aluminum so I cannot comment on it. I test rode aluminum in the 80's when they first came out I would not have ridden one if they had given it to me. I replaced my wife's Trek made from 531 steel with an aluminum Trek not realizing at the time what a mistake that was. Yuck! I wish that I could get that bike back for her. Oh well, live and learn.

Just ride some bikes, hopefully you have an LBS that will give you an extended test ride of 20 to 30 miles and maybe even put the same wheelset on each bike for a direct comparison.

[Fixed]

i can't tell if I am on steel, alum or ti .. i can tell a carbon fork though
cheers

[TAW]

I think sometimes these debates get messed up by approaching the question from different perspectives and not admitting that.

The way a frame of a given geometry rides will depend on the inherent properties of its materials, the way its tubes are joined, the construction of its tubes, and its weight (which may well be a result of the former three in large measure).

Given the thousands of ways one can lay up a CF tube versus the few ways one can construct a metal tube, due to their inherent properties, and given further that the method of joining CF tubes (glue and lugs, glue and CF wrap, monocoque) will not be the way that metal tubes are joined, and given that vibration transmits through CF differently from metal (and metals differently from each other, but less so) it is not rational to expect that a metal frame will feel exactly like a CF frame if it is just put in the hands of the right builder. Does anyone think any metal builder has analyzed all properties of even one CF frame and then fiddled with his own available options to recreate that CF feel? And if he has not, how could anyone claim that in the hands of the right builder any material can be made to feel the same - it's never been done, so why claim it can always be done? Add in the element of weight ("yes, Mr. Brilliant Builder, I'd like a 920-gram aluminum frame, size 56, that feels like my Scott Addict - thanks") and the comparison gets even more strained.

The answer is in the semantics of "feels like" and "rides like." Those two undefined terms undermine common understanding.

I may (sometimes) ride along thinking about every little resonance, every bit of comfort over certain kinds of surfaces, every sound (which has a psychological effect on ride feel), every ounce of energy rewarded on the last hill of the day as my underpowered legs search for speed, but many people don't. I may have 11 bikes I rotate between on the same routes many times so I can pick up frame material characteristics across different levels of physical exhaustion/effort/speed, but most people don't have the time or stable to do that kind of long-term comparison. In particular, people who race or love hard group rides are much more focused on the tool: is it stiff enough, is it light enough for their more powerful legs, does it track right through tight corners, is the front/back balance good for out of the saddle climbing? That way of looking at bikes is just less sensitive to subtleties of feel, and for them a good stiff bike with the right geometry can come in any material, because the differences they care about are 3% variances and the variances I care about are 1% variances (let's say). I care about sensations, they care about effectiveness, I'm thinking Swiss chocolate they are thinking chocolate. To them, any good builder can create the right tool for the job, and they are right about that. To me, CF rides differently, which I figured out on my frame material test rides 7 years ago and has remained true for me thousands of miles on lots of frames later. Nobody on the planet can make a steel bike feel like a carbon fiber bike pound for pound close to the UCI limit if I am focused on every little thing. Many people on the planet don't care, don't notice, or have no reason to care.

So, both answers are correct, just from different perspectives. Anybody asking the question needs to figure out their perspective (particularly on the definition of comfort) and not assume that any given poster on the "do materials matter" topic has the same perspective.

Well put. Thanks for the post.

[RPS]

here's an illuminating piece by the late Sheldon Brown that addresses your question in detail.

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

kenoSheldon’s description below is excellent, and should be of interest to those looking for a quality ride. My favorite part is highlighted.


“Much of the commonplace B.S. that is talked about different frame materials relates to imagined differences in vertical stiffness. It will be said that one frame has a comfy ride and absorbs road shocks, while another is alleged to be harsh and make you feel every crack in the pavement. Virtually all of these "differences" are either the imaginary result of the placebo effect, or are caused by something other than the frame material choice.

Bumps are transmitted from the rear tire patch, through the tire, the wheel, the seatstays, the seatpost, the saddle frame, and the saddle top. All these parts deflect to a greater or lesser extent when you hit a bump, but not to an equal extent.

The greatest degree of flex is in the tire, probably the second greatest is the saddle itself. If you have a lot of seatpost sticking out of a small frame, there's noticeable flex in the seatpost. The shock absorbent qualities of good quality wheels are negligible...and now we get to the seat stays. The seat stays (the only part of this system that is actually part of the frame) are loaded in pure, in-line compression. In this direction, they are so stiff, even the lightest and thinnest ones, that they can contribute nothing worth mentioning to shock absorbency.”

[Dave]

I've owned a few harsh riding frames. A C'dale 2.8 aluminum, circa 1992 was one of the worst. A 1998 Litespeed Ultimate was nearly as bad. A Cervelo R3 (carbon), size 51cm wasn't very pleasant either. I'm sure that an oversize steel tube frame can be made to ride as harshly as any of those.

[H1449-6]

OT: I watched the video then took a look at some of the pics.

I can identify many but not all of these guys, but boy are they short, on average. I'd say something like 5'6" if that.

What's up with that?

http://strongframes.com/images/full/gallery_10/Just.JPG

[slowgoing]

maybe that's what girlie meant by "shortcomings."

as for Dave's comment, I had the chemeric twin of the Ultimate - the Merckx Millenium - and it was also bone jarring.

[maunahaole]

I had a c-dale 2.8, and while the ride was firm, I don't know if I would go to bone jarring. I rode several centuries and double centuries on that bike. It was definitely harsher than the current ti bike. However, a lot of that is probably mitigated by the fact that I ride a 63 in a cannondale - I'm thinking that the longer tubes tend to smooth the harshness out to a significant degree.

[rounder]

So, both answers are correct, just from different perspectives. Anybody asking the question needs to figure out their perspective (particularly on the definition of comfort) and not assume that any given poster on the "do materials matter" topic has the same perspective.

1centaur...You always seem to have well thought out ideas...and always respect your opinions. You have mentioned several times that carbon is where it's at. I have always ridden steel bikes (except for my aluminum cannondale mountain bike). I know that they are durable and that lots of people believe that steel is where it's at. The custom builders seem to swear by it, but steel is also easier for them to build with compared to the other materials. I like my bikes because they are comfortable and seem to handle really well...plus they have fit in with my budget. But, you don't have to watch the TDF to know that everyone today races on carbon, and it's not just because that is what the sponsors give them. What do you like about carbon compared to other stuff. Also, do you believe that the carbon bikes will last forever or should be disposed of in the next 5 (10) years. Thanks in advance.

[Tobias]

.....snipped..........
I ride a 63 in a cannondale - I'm thinking that the longer tubes tend to smooth the harshness out to a significant degree.Although larger frames can be less rigid due to their longer tubes, I expect most frames remain relatively rigid compared to other components that affect ride.

I happen to agree that tires make the biggest difference, and expect that larger riders who ride a 63 CM frame get a lot more “compliance” out of their tires than those who ride 51 CM frames.

[1centaur]

There are a lot of old Trek OCLVs around that are doing fine, and the makers have learned a lot about carbon fiber over the years. Certainly there are tons of over 5-year-old bikes that are none the worse for wear. Makers claims they have long lives (no fatigue life), so my guess is they'll last a long time if they are not cracked by the wrong kind of impact. I also think we should not overestimate our own cycling lives - we might not be doing serious miles 10 or 20 years from now, so why buy a bike with that expectation as a significant consideration? Live for today, or the next 5 years at most, when buying a bicycle. By then we may be richer or poorer or sicker or fitter or moved to a bad cycling area or moved to the mountains.

What I like about CF starts with how it goes over bumps - like the first time I ever drove a car with a sophisticated suspension system over train tracks that had always bugged me in a cheaper car. I had ridden steel all my life (like most of us over 35) and was getting tired of riding around road imperfections or getting jarred at the end of long rides when I was tired. I read that Ti and CF were comfortable and alu was harsh, so I tested two CF bikes and a Ti bike to find out my impressions (all three I took on my then typical 27-mile loop). Night and day between the CF and the steel, and the Ti might as well have been steel it was so close. I also like light, and I like big-tubed aesthetics. I like stiff in the drivetrain for efficiency without making the ride jarring. I have Ti and alu bikes, and they serve their purpose, but CF just gives me the perfect combo (in most cases - I have had harsh CF, like the original Orca, so I try to focus on makers with a certain reputation for comfort).

When others say steel is comfortable, I don't really get that. I understand the flex aspect of comfort, but not the metal aspect. But I know others really feel that way so that's why I advocate test rides - nobody on a forum can tell you what is best for you (though 87% of people not telling you alu is smooth is probably instructive).

[rounder]

That was good. Thanks!!

[frogpirate]

1centaur that was very good.

My limited expierence with AL agrees with the general consesus that AL can be harsh. The best riding AL bike I ever test road was an upper end Cannondale. The worst was my wifes old Giant mid range something or another.

My Ti bike (Litespeed Arunburg) had a great ride, but was a bit to noodly. It was designed as a 'fund raiser century" bike, and excelled at that. If I lived in Kansas and rode falt-rollers I would have kept it forever. I live in Washington and ride mountains for fun; it is gone (after about 5K fun miles!) Build quality and attention to detail on that frame we excellent.

I love my steel IRO 'cross bike. I can ride it fast over rough ground without feeling like I am getting beat to death; my son's Redline Conquest (AL) seemed hard to ride as fast on rough ground because it beat me to death. It's actually hard for me to quantify WHAT I like about this bike, but I like it.

My Giant TCR Zero is actually easier to quantify. I am not in 'love' with this bike, I tend to view it more utilitarian. Which is not to say it's not good, it is. It is stiffer than I need to let me climb as hard as I can, the ride is comfortable and it's light; under 15 lbs when I don't have the clamp on rack and tail bag on it. :rolleyes: The ride is 'plush' without being 'dead'. In contrast, I find my wifes Trek 5500 somewhat 'dead' feeling. Handling may be the Giant's strangest suite - it rails. I have hit 52 MPH on descents on this bike and never really felt out of control. It accelerates quickly (although not quite as quickly as the Orbea AL/carbon bike I test road) and is a perfect crit bike. My one complaint is that it's a tad small (Medium) but a large would be to big. I wish this bike had been made in actual sizes.