velospace is about bikes and the people who ride them marketplace photos random forums














    • CommentAuthorpandito
    • CommentTimeJan 1st 2013
     
    Hey all, first off thanks for the replies and comments to answer my questions. I noticed there's not much solid or definite answer to the ever-popular comparison between steel, alloy, crmo and carbon frames. I wanna know the cons and pros of each and which one do you think is the best. Second I'm looking for a nice front tire that can handle punctures and the sort, but still rolls fast/fairly. I wouldnt care about how they would withstand skidding since they're front tyres, thanks!
  1.  
    Been a member for all of 10 minutes!
    • CommentAuthorquixoticle
    • CommentTimeJan 1st 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: panditoHey all, first off thanks for the replies and comments to answer my questions.


    That's assuming a lot. I mean, chromoly is a high grade of steel, and alloy can mean any number of metals. I assume you mean aluminum. Carbon is also a very nebulous notion these days. Though I don't know what you mean by there not being "much solid or definite answer[s]" to the question as to which material is better for cycling. There can be no definite end-all "answer" to any "comparison" between the materials, it all comes down to a subjective evaluation and approximation of what material is suited to what use and what rider's expectations. This is an issue that is discussed endlessly on the internet by idiots, as if there were some "answer" to which material is the best. So, I'm not sure what internet you're surfing. Not only is this question not worth asking, but it's pretty self-explanatory in and of itself, if you are at all familiar with each material, and which again can be read about on Wikipedia or a bikeforums.com thread from 2004.

    Just get Gatorskinz front and rear. That should help you navigate those rough and tumble Malaysian streets on your brakeless fixie.

    (EDIT: Jakarta is in Indonesia. You learn something every day!)
    • CommentAuthorpandito
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: quixoticle
    Posted By: panditoHey all, first off thanks for the replies and comments to answer my questions.


    That's assuming a lot. I mean, chromoly is a high grade of steel, and alloy can mean any number of metals. I assume you mean aluminum. Carbon is also a very nebulous notion these days. Though I don't know what you mean by there not being "much solid or definite answer[s]" to the question as to which material is better for cycling. There can be no definite end-all "answer" to any "comparison" between the materials, it all comes down to a subjective evaluation and approximation of what material is suited to what use and what rider's expectations. This is an issue that is discussed endlessly on the internet by idiots, as if there were some "answer" to which material is the best. So, I'm not sure what internet you're surfing. Not only is this question not worth asking, but it's pretty self-explanatory in and of itself, if you are at all familiar with each material, and which again can be read about on Wikipedia or a bikeforums.com thread from 2004.

    Just get Gatorskinz front and rear. That should help you navigate those rough and tumble Malaysian streets on your brakeless fixie.


    well on personal experience which frame material would you pick? And I'm not from Malaysia
  2.  
    Steel absorbs big bumps and is usually a pretty relaxed ride (so, not as stiff as aluminum)
    Aluminum rides pretty harshly, but is very stiff
    I haven't ridden carbon yet, but from what I've heard it absorbs small road noise and certain frames (like the Dogma and C59) can be really stiff.
  3.  
    hahahaha the pandito vato is right...jakarta = indonesia. still...all of that nuckas questions are either google-able or just dumb (your tire requirements)...like wishing for a girl with E 32 titties and big booty and weigh under 80 lbs. those titties alone will get weigh you down 50 lbs in the same way that extra puncture protection will weight your 'fast' tire.

    using the same metaphor...plastic surgery. pay out your ass for a tire that can do it all...but that can even only get you so far.

  4.  
    What can I say, I am a fat ignorant American.
    • CommentAuthorpandito
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: jamesbooty3hahahaha the pandito vato is right...jakarta = indonesia. still...all of that nuckas questions are either google-able or just dumb (your tire requirements)...like wishing for a girl with E 32 titties and big booty and weigh under 80 lbs. those titties alone will get weigh you down 50 lbs in the same way that extra puncture protection will weight your 'fast' tire.

    using the same metaphor...plastic surgery. pay out your ass for a tire that can do it all...but that can even only get you so far.



    true, they're google-able but as I said I havent found any sure answer yet. I hope you guys can help. and for the tyres, then I guess I should either shrink down those boobies or not at all to sacrifice either weight or cup size.
    • CommentAuthorpandito
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: SillyGooseCookieSteel absorbs big bumps and is usually a pretty relaxed ride (so, not as stiff as aluminum)
    Aluminum rides pretty harshly, but is very stiff
    I haven't ridden carbon yet, but from what I've heard it absorbs small road noise and certain frames (like the Dogma and C59) can be really stiff.


    so you suggest I ride a steel frame?
    • CommentAuthorquixoticle
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013 edited
     
    Well, barring my honest geographical blunder (Asia is not my forté), I don't think you took my points to heart. What are you looking for in a bike? Do you want something light and fast, but fragile? Will you be locking this bike up, leaving it outside at night, riding it in the rain and dirt? Will you be doing tricks? Training or commuting? There are materials better suited to any number of these scenarios. If you're looking for a bike to ride around town, to lock up, I would suggest aluminum or steel. While aluminum is lighter than steel, it is also less resilient to damage. Think of a Cinelli MASH as a giant Diet Coke can - aluminum is a very soft and pliable material. It really doesn't take much to bend it. Even letting your bike fall over particularly hard can exert enough force to knock the rear triangle out of alignment, not to say getting hit by a car or otherwise crashing. Steel on the other hand will withstand greater trauma, is more durable, and can be mended when damaged. It is the heaviest of the three, but can be pretty light, too. Overall, the weight gain from aluminum to steel is not as bad as people make it out to be. Light bikes are overrated. I even find I'm able to keep pace better on a 18-20 lbs bike than on a 14 lbs one, and it makes you stronger too. Carbon is not really suitable or rather I should say advisable to ride in anything other than controlled circumstances. A carbon bike is not something you should really be riding hard in the street. When carbon spontaneously fails, which it does, it does so catastrophically. That, and carbon frames are more often than not prohibitively priced, and if you find one that isn't, it's either old or of questionable provenance - either of which should give one pause.

    So I think you should really be considering either just steel or aluminum. If you're not worried about crashing and want a really light bike, get something made out of aluminum. If you want a strong dependable bike you can keep care-free for years, and that will build up into a great bike, get steel.

    I myself would rate the materials thus:

    1.) steel
    2.) carbon
    3.) aluminum

    But you really can't depend on this, because it has everything to do with my own needs and expectations and tastes as a cyclist. I don't ride a fixed gear, and I have a condition that prevents me from being able to commute meaningfully. Rather, I look at cycling as a beautiful, aesthetic experience and a means of staying fit when I can. I like steel most because of all the beautiful bikes that are built with it, and because I think that between these beautifully, masterfully crafted frames one experiences such an endless wealth of nuance. But mass-produced steel - like SE or Kilo TT's - can also be the most awful bikes possible. Carbon offers a performance advantage that can be otherworldly when in a quality, well-designed frame. Aluminum is stiff and, to an extent, lightweight, and can deliver a really exciting road feel. But again that depends on the bike. It's just that every aluminum frame I've owned has either been disappointing or met a bad end (my last fixed gear - a Giant Omnium - was rendered more or less unrideable in a car accident, where a steel frame would have either not bent or been repairable).

    So, if you expect some help here, you need to ask yourself these questions.

    1.) what do I want to get out of my bike?
    2.) how much can I afford to spend?
    3.) in particular, what kinds/models of bikes am I interested in?
    • CommentAuthorveggie
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013
     
    Down James, down
  5.  


    nawwhhhhh...the reason for the metaphor. i was just at this super rich mall in my area and saw the most absurd 40yr. old lady. like...eff gear-ratios...DAT silicon-to-body weight ratio
    • CommentAuthormktng
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013
     
    bamboo
    • CommentAuthorpandito
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013
     
    Posted By: quixoticleWell, barring my honest geographical blunder (Asia is not my forté), I don't think you took my points to heart. What are you looking for in a bike? Do you want something light and fast, but fragile? Will you be locking this bike up, leaving it outside at night, riding it in the rain and dirt? Will you be doing tricks? Training or commuting? There are materials better suited to any number of these scenarios. If you're looking for a bike to ride around town, to lock up, I would suggest aluminum or steel. While aluminum is lighter than steel, it is also less resilient to damage. Think of a Cinelli MASH as a giant Diet Coke can - aluminum is a very soft and pliable material. It really doesn't take much to bend it. Even letting your bike fall over particularly hard can exert enough force to knock the rear triangle out of alignment, not to say getting hit by a car or otherwise crashing. Steel on the other hand will withstand greater trauma, is more durable, and can be mended when damaged. It is the heaviest of the three, but can be pretty light, too. Overall, the weight gain from aluminum to steel is not as bad as people make it out to be. Light bikes are overrated. I even find I'm able to keep pace better on a 18-20 lbs bike than on a 14 lbs one, and it makes you stronger too. Carbon is not really suitable or rather I should say advisable to ride in anything other than controlled circumstances. A carbon bike is not something you should really be riding hard in the street. When carbon spontaneously fails, which it does, it does so catastrophically. That, and carbon frames are more often than not prohibitively priced, and if you find one that isn't, it's either old or of questionable provenance - either of which should give one pause.

    So I think you should really be considering either just steel or aluminum. If you're not worried about crashing and want a really light bike, get something made out of aluminum. If you want a strong dependable bike you can keep care-free for years, and that will build up into a great bike, get steel.

    I myself would rate the materials thus:

    1.) steel
    2.) carbon
    3.) aluminum

    But you really can't depend on this, because it has everything to do with my own needs and expectations and tastes as a cyclist. I don't ride a fixed gear, and I have a condition that prevents me from being able to commute meaningfully. Rather, I look at cycling as a beautiful, aesthetic experience and a means of staying fit when I can. I like steel most because of all the beautiful bikes that are built with it, and because I think that between these beautifully, masterfully crafted frames one experiences such an endless wealth of nuance. But mass-produced steel - like SE or Kilo TT's - can also be the most awful bikes possible. Carbon offers a performance advantage that can be otherworldly when in a quality, well-designed frame. Aluminum is stiff and, to an extent, lightweight, and can deliver a really exciting road feel. But again that depends on the bike. It's just that every aluminum frame I've owned has either been disappointing or met a bad end (my last fixed gear - a Giant Omnium - was rendered more or less unrideable in a car accident, where a steel frame would have either not bent or been repairable).

    So, if you expect some help here, you need to ask yourself these questions.

    1.) what do I want to get out of my bike?
    2.) how much can I afford to spend?
    3.) in particular, what kinds/models of bikes am I interested in?


    All I'm expecting for my bike is to be durable and comy to ride on since I intend to use it on commuting purposes. I dont want to spend a ridiculous amount just for the frame, probably $400 max. and obviously I am a fixed gear enthusiast.
  6.  
    Go for steel then. It is a softer ride, and if you ding it, no big deal.
  7.  
    Posted By: SillyGooseCookieGo for steel then. It is a softer ride, and if you ding it, no big deal.


    seconded.
    • CommentAuthorveggie
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013
     
    Steel is real bro
    • CommentAuthorMancha150
    • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2013 edited
     
    You guys remember when I used to recommend a giant bowery for everything? It was like my first 6 months here. It got annoying, didnt it?

    Anyway, giant bowery is real. It is a tank with the attitude of jerome bettis, the swag of kirby puckett, and the guns of bo jackson

    So:

    1. Steel > Aluminum
    2. Giant bowery > Jesus
    3. => Giant bowery > Steel
  8.  
    or you can just get a kilo tt
  9.  
    baddabing
 
\



velospace | about, FAQ & policies | contact | blog | status | site map
© 2005-2011 velospace. All Rights Reserved.