Frame material hierarchy

Its all, utterly subjective

Some will say Steel (and there-in will be a bun fight over Tange, Reynolds [853, 531 etc], Columbus etc), others will say Ti, while Aluminium will be always be lauded for its stiffness, as will "newer" materials like Carbon for their own properties.....


There is no "Best", only what each person likes "Most"

G
 
'Best' is very subjective,
but my opinion.

1:Titanium.
2: Steel.
3: Aluminium.
4: Bamboo.
5: Wood.
6: Exotic alloys like magnesium.
7: Cotton wool.
8: Carbon. (this should really be saved for F1 undertrays.)

As far as Reynolds goes I think it currently is, 953, 931, 853, 753, 725, 631 531, 525, 520. Though they may not be strictly in that order as it would depend on application.
 
All materials are good depending on their different profiles and thicknesses. One 853 tubset is not the same as another 853 tubset.

I like it when builders mix it up...like Foco, 853 and another steel all in one frame.

Hate carbon, over rated crap.

Very few alloy hard tail frames give a good ride feel.

Think alloy is best in full sus frames.

Ti is great in a hard tail, but if built bad can give a harsh ride.
 
I'd worry more about who put it together regardless of material.

And you are only looking at what you think you know from magazines. Delve into the history and you'll find aluminium frames dating from the 1930's, carbon frames from the 1960's and titanium from the early 1970's. Many are still perfectly rideable as they were put together well.

There are so many 'quality' frames that have failed very quickly. A whole years worth of specialized carbon frames failed at their shock mount. All had to be replaced.

There can't really be any what's best.
 
Back
Top