Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:51 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:23 pm 
Mr Darcy
Mr Darcy
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:36 pm
Posts: 5688
Location: Bicester
:D :D :D

This has been buzzing round my head for a while, and this quote from the 91 Orange catalogue captures it..

'Normally, aluminium frames offer comfort, but can feel dead when power is applied'

Back in the day, this was recognised as how Alu bikes ride. New skool thinking is that Alu bikes are hard and accelerate really quickly.

Whats that all about? :?

Has aluminium changed its properties over time?

Also, top line bikes used to be Alu, el crappo were steel.
Now, top line are steel, el crappo are Alu.


Please help.
Why :?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:00 am 
Old School Grand Master
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 917
Location: Wookey Hole
I'd never heard the claims from Orange about alu offering comfort. As far as I recall (90 'ish) alu frames were always pushed as being stiffer and therefore less comfortable.

People have been making bikes from steel since way back in the day. Alu bikes are a relatively recent thing. Although alu mtbs were certainly available in the 80s they didn't hit the big time until the early 90s. This explains the price differential - it was simply new technology. Everone was knocking up bikes out of steel so they were cheaper.

The mainstream seems to have adopted aluminium as it's mass market material of choice these days, ergo the bikes are cheaper due to economies of scale. A high end steel frame is pretty much a niche product these days, hence the price (although I'm sure halfords are still knocking out £50 pig iron specials).

At the end of the day is a Specialized M5 hardtail any 'better' or 'worse' than a Indy Fab Deluxe?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:51 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:14 pm
Posts: 14251
Location: Warwick
yeah.....this is how I see it:

aluminium = hard ride & light

steel = absorbent and mediumish weight

ti = absorbent light and expensive

I think a lot of it is down to seatpost and rear tyre choice really. I always liked the idea of blindfolding someone and making them ride each type- then asking them what they though the bike was made of (if they havent fallen off cos they couldnt see)

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:19 pm 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:18 am
Posts: 17198
Location: near cwmcarn
times are changing. my old (04) yeti arc scandium was surprisingly comfy & very un-alumium like.
fat chance ti & gt xizange are over .7lb difference in weight for the same size & theres a noticeable difference between the 2 in terms of flex & overal ride feel.

I've had this conversation countless time before (most recently with fluff). frame material is just 1 factor.

... but gumps right, the marketing ploys (& thats all they are.. marketing BS!) has deffo changed over time ;)

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ErikFive, Gruff, kalex, kaya, madjh and 58 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group