What's Best For Touring? Aluminum Frame vs. Steel
Thursday June 11, 2009
Got the following email from a reader and figured I'd pitch it out for you to offer feedback and opinion. Here's the message:
I read your review of the Kona Major Jake and found it very informative. I am leaving for an 8-day bike trip soon and am planning on purchasing a new bike for the purpose. Because I want my bike to be versatile I'm planning to purchase a cyclocross bike, however, I'm unsure as to the benefits of an aluminum frame versus a steel one and what value there may be in a carbon fork. I want as light a ride as possible, and need to be able to put a pannier on a rear rack. What's preferable for what's really more of a touring trip? A steel frame or an aluminum frame? Do you have any preferences among cyclocross bikes at the $1000-$1500 range, perhaps a favorite bike of great value that people tend to overlook? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Okay, your turn. Any thoughts or recommendations on these questions? Comment below.
Comments
I have used both for training and found the steel to be a little more forgiving but the aluminum was lighter. The frame it’s self though can have more to do with that than material. A great laid out frame can change the comfort of the bike and do amazing things.
Ensure the bike fits you above all!
Check for pannier and rack mounts/eyelets. Some have and some may not.
Carbon forks are pretty standard at your price point and WELL worth it. I started riding one 3 years ago and will never go back.
As for specific model, none come to mind but ask around locally. I ride an Opus and love it but Canadian bikes work out a bit cheaper and it fit me very well.
Do not underestimate fit, its worth more than anything else.
I have ridden both, steel is much more forgiving and a pleasure to ride.
Another bike to consider is the Surly long haul trucker. My two friends dearly love them on trips. I ride an older Raleigh super grand prix, which is steel and can’t part with.
The Surley its a great bike, there are 2 here in town and both are put to good use.
I have a Surly Pacer which is steel and a very nice frame as well.
My issue with aluminum (and why I changed to steel) is that aluminium tends to be more brittle, and if the bike’s in an accident, it can more easily significantly bend and/or break. (I experienced this in an accident.) My feeling is that if you’re going to put in miles, stick to steel; at least you have a better chance of riding it home after an accident.
I am 65 years old and love to ride long distances. i have a Surly Long Haul Trucker, I live in Alaska and iIride my Surly on my daily commute to work and during the winter when I need a sturdy bike that won’t break because of the extreme temps and that is comfy. I bought it to ride Historic Route 66 and to plan for my round the world jaunt. If it breaks anyone who has any kind of welder can repair it. The only thing I would do different is to buy the Surly that breaks in half for ease of travel. I also bought the Surly racks, front and back, that are steel for the same reason. I don’t have any problems riding the bike and highly recommend it highly. It is quiet, smooth and I have mine set up for long, tall hills/mountains with the gearing that makes those long climbs easier. I have yet to get into the lower gears, it is just so easy to ride. I have a Klein Mountain bike and a Klein racing bike but the Surly is my day to day bike!
Most touring bikes have a long chain stay- so your panniers will fit without your heels bumping them on each rotation. I cycled across the country on a steel cycle cross with small rear panniers, and it worked. I considered it an upgrade when I bought a true steel touring bike for the next cross-country ride. My heels never hit the panniers on the touring bike.
my suggestion: take alumunium for bike racing; and take steel for touring/ outdoor biking. mine is a Chinese-made United (steel frame).
If possible try the bike out with a rear rack and panniers on it, to check for heel clearance.
This is a bigger deal if you have large feet. If you can’t the particular bike frame combo, at least measure the chainstay length and test a different bike with the same measures chainstay length. While I prefer steel many people find aluminum is good also. I would tend to stay away from carbon forks and/or frames on a bike used for touring. My understanding is a scratch on carbon frame/fork means it is time to replace the part. That would be a bummer on a tour. I suppose you could set up a fork just for touring. I also recommend riding 300-500 miles to break in the bike before departing on your 8 day tour.
The latest steel alloy frames are not that much heavier that aluminium alloy frames. However, steel alloy has a better fatigue life, is better at absorbing shocks, is relatively easy to repair, and easier to fit braised on fittings as is characteristic of touring bicycles. For long distance, comfortable riding, steel alloy or titanium alloy, where steel alloy has the added benefit of being easy to repair.
Go with steel, but if you are preparing to leave for an 8 day ride without putting on any miles on a bike, I think you have more to concern yourself with than steel or aluminum, unless you are totally on the mark with fit.
I recently purchased a Trek 520, 2007 model new. I have riddent roughly 110 miles a week for the past six week and have fallen in love with steel after 2400 miles on carbon.
I have a ‘04 Trek 520 (steel) with 11,000 miles on it with over 8000 of those loaded touring miles. I have a Trek 6700 Mtn Bike (aluminum) with 3000 loaded touring miles on it. I like both bikes but truely love my Trek 520. Personally, for loaded touring I’d stay away from carbon. I’ve heard from many first time bike tour cyclists that they were completely disappointed with carbon frames and forks for loaded touring. So I recommend for go fast club rides buy a carbon frame/fork bike, for long distance road touring go for steel your body will thank you.
I really don’t think its quite that simple. Touring bikes are designed to be stable and not break under heavily loaded extended touring.
To that end the frame geometry is designed to put the position of loaded paniers where they’ll be least of an issue, the wheels tend to be heavier duty and have more spokes, the gearing tends to favor more mechanical advantage, and the load capacity of the bike is higher than one intended for speed and a rider in spandex.
But maybe you’re not doing loaded touring anyway. If you plan on an 8 day ride, basicly taking little or nothing with you except credit cards, or if you’re getting support from a car during the trip – a lot of that becomes very incidental.
And an 8 day trip isn’t all that long anyway. Most bikes can be abused for that long without issue. The frame geometry if you plan on adding a pack to a non touring bike – would likely be more of an issue.
I’m delighted to hear that some people swear by carbon fibre – good luck getting that fixed ANYWHERE on ANY trip should the need arise.