are 'new' aluminum frames really better than the old?
 

Was at LBS and new aluminum bike frames looked impressive [thought they were carbon on first look]. These newer versions
seem sleeker than what I remember early 2000's when I decided I didn't like the harsher ride aluminum provided [and got rid of my old trekie 2300]. They are 'molding' these different now I think; at least better surface feel.

Has anyone had a comparative experience between these new aluminum frames and the older models? Do they ride any different [LBS had cervelo and felt...and they carry specialized]. Thinking about going in and testing some out as sort in a n+1 mood lately but thought I'd ask what others are experiencing on aluminum these days. Are opinions changing much about an aluminum ride?

Thanks for any comparative input. [I presently own carbon, titanium, and steel]...

I used to own and love a litespeed alu bike (early 2000's) until I got hit by a car. I replaced this bike with a 2014 cannondale caad10. And while the litespeed had carbon dropouts and fork (the caad frame is pure alu except the fork), I can tell you that the ride quality is much-much better on the caad. I had been so impressed with the new alu bikes that I ended up buying a specialized allez too (very similar results).

So I think that's obvious that there has been some improvement in the past 10-15 years.

Stay away from the low end alu, I'd recommend the caad10/caad12 and the specialized allez. And I only heard good things about the trek emonda alr.

Oh one more thing. I also own a carbon bike and that's still smoother than my alu bikes. Better? Not necessarily. Different? Yes.

My alu experience is limited to an '89 Cannondale SM800 MTB I owned back in '90-'91 which I HATED, and which caused me to eschew alu bikes until this past December, when I assembled a Kinesis Racelight 4S frameset to be my winter/spring/rain bike.

I can tell you that the Kinesis has really surprised and pleased me in the comfort department, being really quite soft feeling over the rough stuff. It's lightyears away from the bone-jarring ride of that C-dale, and honestly, is not distinguishable from the ride quality I get out of my steel bikes. I certainly brought my prejudices to this bike, and expected a harsher feel, but nope, it rides really nicely, even on gravel/dirt roads.

I don't know how much of that is applicable across alu frames in general, but if reviews are good and the geo what you want, I wouldn't be afraid to give one a go.

Yes, the alloy itself has evolved.

It has improved in terms of both materials and processes for both the manufacturing of the alloy itself and methods used to draw or shape the tubes. Both of these factors have also impacted design which leads to better bikes as well.

Define what you mean by "better"...

In general, modern high end aluminum bikes are lighter, and more rigid (with the exception of some early Cannondale bikes (which were as stiff as a 2 X 4) than early high end aluminum bikes. But I don't find them to be more comfortable. I think comfort is a proportional to the rigidity of the frame, and modern frame more rigid, resulting in a less comfortable ride.

Certainly alu frame ride quality is not uniform, and has changed over time through the early Vitus and Alan frames, to the oversized Cannondale classics, and through into the boom years when everyone from Trek to Colnago were tuning and shaping with tubing manufacturers from Easton to Kinesis to Dedacciai, in search of the perfect balance of weight, comfort, and performance. So yeah, which frame you benchmark off makes a difference. Broadly speaking, alu went from whippy to stiff to right-on over time.

OP,
New Al bikes like the Allez are 'night an day' better than preceeding round tube Al including coveted CAAD iterations known for their harsh ride.
In fact latest ride quality rivals carbon. I own both a late model Roubaix and Secteur and the Secteur in some ways rides better than the Roubaix which is stiffer...except on big hits. The Secteur with 25mm tires has a Cadillac ride honestly...astounding. Its shape is almost the same as the Roubaix side by side as well.

Why the evolution? Not alloy difference as Bob suggested...or very little contribution there.
Rather tube shape. Extreme advances in tube forming allow for differential bending..more flex in vertical plane and more rigid horizontally. Cake and eat it too. Same principles can't be applied to steel or Ti...or rather cost prohibitive. Tube shape trumps material qualities as it turns out. In other words, with freedom to form tubes in a variety of ways, this is compensation for given material characteristics. Al is vastly different than carbon in many respects...notably modulus of elasticity and yield strength and even density and yet through careful selection of tube shape, Al can rival the performance of carbon....that is where strides have been made.

Many top amateurs aka CAT 2-3's in fact race the new CAAD and Allez bikes. Both stiff..only fractional weight penalty compared to carbon and typically $1K less for equivalent frame.

To me, with 'new' Al frames, they have obsoleted both steel and Ti. I have owned several bikes made of each material.

It rings crazy to me, and I wouldn't have thought it could be true, but I am totally open to accepting this as true myself!

I'm not saying that steel and Ti cannot express unique ride qualities from alu, but rather that it's improbable one can expect or assume any given ride qualities for any given frame based solely on material.

Reason is...the proverbial elephant in the room is Shape. Tube shape is the predominant knob to turn when dialing performance qualities. Yes material matters...but matters much more if limited with Shape. That is where steel and Ti fall down and move behind Al...neither can be formed in the shape of a carbon bike like Al can.. Can Al move ahead of carbon fiber? No. Even if Al can be Shaped close to carbon, carbon is simply lighter, stiffer and has higher yield strength. There are further benefits of carbon...it can be laid up to locally increase stiffness. This is much harder to do with Aluminum in terms of added reinforcement without a large weight penalty.. Further, carbon can be used directionally that trumps grain direction in Al.

So carbon wins and why it is the dominant material for top race bikes. It is also not happenstance that Al beats steel and Ti among the best bike companies from Specialized to Trek to Cervelo to Look to all of them. Differential frame tube sections has taught top bike companies that Al can be made to perform similar...not quite as well...but good compared to carbon with only a slight weight and lateral stiffness disadvantage.
My 2014 Secteur below set up for spirited cruising and light touring which is a quick bike unloaded... I upgraded to Campy 10s with Fulcrum wheelset has better ride quality than any steel and Ti bike I have owned which is saying a lot. It is also stiffer as many steel and Ti bikes I have owned the BB would flex like a clock main spring.

I don't know that shape is "the elephant in the room" as all of the replies have mentioned it as a key factor, and it's a readily observable characteristic of alu frames, emblematic of the changes over time.

Hydroforming was a big leap forward in alu performance, but it was superplastic forming that really brought alu to CF levels in terms of weight while improving on shaping possibilities.

Please explain the definition of superplastic forming and why this technique falls outside of the domain of hydroforming?
Thanks

SPF occurs at higher temp and using pneumatic pressure. It also requires particular alloys, particularly those with high zirconium content.

I should add, to answer your question explicitly, that SPF falls outside the domain of hydroforming because it uses air pressure rather than water pressure.

My '11 Focus rides smoother than any steel bike I've had, or the one carbon bike I've had. But my '97 Easton Elan Raleigh is not harsh at all. It's actually my favorite bike. I roll my eyes when someone talks about a bone jarring aluminum ride. Wheels/tires make a bigger difference.

I currently own and ride a great old '88 “bonded” aluminum Trek 1400, as well as a '99 Cannondale with a carbon fork, and a 2 year old alloy Trek (also with a carbon fork). The alloy bikes have certainly improved over the years.

I also like, own, and ride vintage steel bikes... although they tend to rotate. IMHO a (new) modern aluminum bicycle can ride every bit as nice as a equal quality steel bike.

I had a CAAD9 and CAAD10 frame and I never once thought about the frame material when I was riding. They certainly didn't have the flexyness of some steel but the comfort and stiffness in the right places was on par with my carbon frames

This is my AL Masi. It's about 10 yrs old and is set up w/Dura Ace and Mavic Aksiums. (At the time of the pic it had Easton wheels) Weighs about 17 lbs w/Speedplay pedals. I love this bike.

I was considering a new steel bike with a carbon fork but now ya'll think that the new aluminum is better than steel, even 853? Good to know. At least I have another couple months to decide before the season turns.

But lets not forget that Aluminum has by far the worst fatigue life out of all these bikes so you're purchasing a ticking time bomb while steel will be as good as it was 10 years ago. I guess many hobbyists like to n+1 anyway so they don't care and you can unload it in 5 years on craigslist to someone who doesn't know or cares that Aluminum fatigues and just wants an inexpensive used bike.

Or has the fatigue life improved too?

Just for the records: I don't think that aluminum is better than steel. I think it's different, so it might work better for you in some cases. For me, I would pick aluminum as a material for my training, winter, rain, race, cx bikes. The reason? Cheap, stiff and the ride quality is close to carbon.

If you want a bike for decades and really worry about fatigue life, steel/ti might be a better choice. But in that case you are going to pay at least 2-4x more. With lifetime guarantee on cannondale and specialized frames, I wouldn't worry about fatigue.

It's a lot more complicated than that, hinging on what your needs are and how you weight various attributes. What we've been talking about is the high performance frame, where low weight, steering accuracy, and reactivity to pedal input are most prized, and overlaying the value proposition on top of that.

Other attributes, such as what it looks like, who made it, where it's from, suitability for fenders, racks, large tires, availability, etc. are not part of the equation, so you'll have to plug those kinds of things in, weight them, and come up with a decision whether, for example, the 853 framed bike available at your LBS as a complete bike is better for you than buying an alu frameset you can only mail order from the UK.

Assuming either one can do the job, and is probably more bike than you even really need, the questions look more like, "is saving 400gm or whatever worth a $400 premium?" and "they have the size I want in the aluminum, but the color on the special order steel frame is so much better."

I can't answer the question regarding fatigue life improvement, but I think it's really a non-issue in any case. I mean, besides the tons and tons of old aluminum bikes I see out running around, we don't worry about replacing stems, cranks, handlebars, seat posts, brake calipers and levers, or wheels every five, or even 10 years, to avoid "fatigue failure," so why should the frame be so different? I don't think they are any different, and outside of extreme cases, fatigue life is just not something I'd worry about.

Can you explain how SPF and hydroforming are used in sequence for creation of an Al frameset?
Thanks

I would think more about the level of aluminum you are considering buying. On my Synapse its plush and respectable stiff. Last year I had a Giant alloy bike a 15 model FastRoad SLR 1 (2016) | Giant Bicycles | United States

That bike was too stiff and felt the road even with 28mm tires. I sold it as it was not a longer distance ride. The frame was Giant's stiffest alloy.

I like my Steel bike for just cruising. I have 32mm tires on my Coda and the thing is a tank like feel to it.

I did some googling because the topic piqued my interest (and I've never heard of SPF before).

Dom Mason of Kinesis: Aluminium road bikes are here to stay | road.cc


So, what have you been able to do here that you’ve not been able to do before?
Material development pushes everything else. Now we have superplastic forming (SPF)…
Previously, we used hydroforming quite a lot for road bikes. Hydroforming uses heated oil at pressure to shape the tubes inside a steel former – quite a high pressure with not much heat on the tube. You can make nice functional shapes so you can get rid of gussets and stuff, but it doesn’t really deliver tubes that are any lighter.
It’s difficult to control hydroforming. It can split tubes so you have to make them quite thick. It’s brilliant for things like full suspension downhill mountain bikes, but it isn’t so good for making lighter road bikes

With superplastic forming (SPF) the alloy goes into its ‘plastic’ phase, so we can use lower pressures and tune the tubes more. It uses heated compressed air in a steel mould, the tubing is at a far higher temperature and you can use thinner walled tubing because you can control it much more finely. That allows us to push what we can do. SPF is a Kinesis International patent, so the great thing is that it is exclusive to us.
So, for example, we can now make a carbon-weight fork from alloy at a fraction of the cost. You had to bond the legs onto a solid crown before. Superplastic forming means you no longer have to do that. You can make both legs as one piece, so you can save weight.

I can't, unfortunately. I'm not familiar enough to know if they are used in sequence, though I believe some tubes in a given frame may be shaped using either one of the processes before being welded into a frame, so I believe they could exist concurrently. I don't expect any given tube would receive both treatments sequentially, but again, I don't know.

SPF exclusive to Kinesis? Hmm...surprising; I didn't realize that. I mean, SPF exists outside of bike manufacturing, and I was familiar with it from Kinesis, but...I don't get how this all fits together! Although, when he says, "exclusive to us," if he means Kinesis manufacturing rather than KinesisUk bikes, that would make sense, as Kinesis does a large amount of contract supplying and manufacturing for other brands.