Q&A

Aluminum or carbon frame?

Details

Parent Category: Q&A

Category: Q&A Technique

Published on Friday, 02 July 2010 08:22

Written by Luca Salvatelli

Dear editor,

I am your new "Navigator". I bought a secondhand bike in carbon low range (whole bike weight 9.2kg) and know I’m not happy with its weight. Now I'm going to change the bike .... But .... my brain is confused! That is, I would like some clarification on the type of machine suitable for my needs. I like very much to go up and outputs max 80km, so ... is more suitable an aluminum or carbon? The weight is more important than stiffness? My greatest expenditure is approximately 2000Euro.

Dear reader,

the evolution of materials with which the frames are made of a bike is a key commercial and technical, just to clarify things ... There is, in fact, framer or designer, who admits that the steel was, is and remains the best material to build a frame for a bicycle. Follow, then, stainless steel and titanium. But the market requires lighter bike (just light), then from steel (average weight of a good frame approximately 1300 grams) passed to aluminum and carbon. The latter material in the frames of the highest allowable range of values to achieve excellent rigidity/weight, impossible to achieve with the aluminum. In fact, while a good carbon frame reaches about 950 grams, a good aluminum frame does not go below 1100 grams. Is be noted, however, that the majority of carbon frames is far superior to the good weights on aluminum frames and even steel (actual weight of the most common carbon frames around 1200-1300 grams). Unfortunately, aluminum is released soon by the wishes of the fans, because it was judged too stiff and uncomfortable, then the urban legends (in this case) in its decay to fatigue (which is real but occurs over a period of time so high that no cyclist will know never) and the classic broken shoddy products has meant that the amateurs are all headed on carbon. …Now you ask a set of things that are antithetical between them, one economic bicycle (not for you, obviously, but referring to the lists of companies), light, stiff and reliable ... impossible. In theory a very rigid frame has an excellent triple butted aluminum with scandium, a frame from about 1100 with real components will assemble at the top to get a bike close to 6.8kg, unfortunately, requires a budget over 5000 Euro or less. Invest a substantial sum, then, in an aluminum frame is a matter for amateurs. Unfortunately today the market is dominated by carbon and aluminum has no required minimum if not for low-end products, she found herself spending a lot of money for a bike unsaleable, then, on the market. But would a bicycle rigid, lightweight and perfect for its use, just more uncomfortable. The alternative, excluding the steel so it should spend even more money, you go on the carbon, but to get a bike from the actual weight of 8 kg, has already spent more than 2000 Euro. Its budget is currently too small to realize her dream of a bike close to 7 kg (budget of more than 5000 Euro). The Board, reported to a future purchase, is to go to a frame of high-end components to be assembled with the group and adapt in order to get closer to his 7 kg. Better a monocoque frame, which usually has a better weight/rigidity. Regarding the importance of weight and rigidity are important, an athlete must be privileged and powerful heavy stiffness, which will allow for good power transfer, while a slight and not very powerful athlete, will focus more on weight. In fact, the frames lighter, are also more rigid, because they are made with the finest materials and designed to meet the needs of professionals who ask always and only low weight and stiffness (in addition are the two main factors of sale). Returning to his specific case, my advice is to continue training with his current bike, deferring to the best of times (and more economically prosperous) the purchase of the bike, otherwise it has two choices: invest in a good bike aluminum allows it to maximize the investment in terms of stiffness/weight/performance/price ratio, at the expense, however, a sharp devaluation of the medium and a certain difficulty in its possible sale, or switch to a carbon frame of medium range, perhaps less rigid (but comfortable) and heavier, but easier to resell in the future. In both cases, however, difficult, and new elements will be able to go below the real 8kg; easier, perhaps, to focus even on second, to be assessed case by case basis.