Use Dedacciai 7003 HT AL or Columbus Neuron Steel Frame?
 

Purchased a bike to be a parts donor for my Guerciotti 1995 Neuron Steel which I really loved riding until I thought frame was damaged so used parts for another build. Bottom line is this frame was fine, just paint crack, so want to get ride ready again.

Donor bike has my least desirable frame material but really high end AL as detailed below.
- Frame Dedaccia 7003 heat treated aluminum
- Tubes are A.B.T butted and shaped like famous Colnago master profile tubes

Riding donor frame was impressive as the ride quality was close to my steel, TI, and carbon bikes. Probably a little harsher and stiffer which the bumps helped demonstrate.

I still believe the Neuron bike would be a better ride but now Im thinking maybe just keep this bike as a N+1 rather than stay at N and flip the AL frame. Also this would make my stable complete as far as having all the frame materials, not that this was even a goal.

Plan on documenting a more complete comparison of the bikes and frame materials listing the other components that contribute to the complete ride feel and performance including carbon fork and seat post but not carbon wheels. The rides Im comparing have similar setups including wheels and components. My TI bike also has a carbon fork but not seat post and my steel bikes all have steel forks and AL seat posts.

Regarding the frame building and possible fixing, I believe the HT 7003 frame would be about the same effort/cost as welding steel?
The weld beads on this frame look very fine like often seen on a TI frame.

After several rides, Im impressed and dont think its worth the trouble to switch all the components.

Curious if any others have had similar experiences with this decision?

I voted 1 since after several rides, Im impressed and dont think its worth the trouble to switch all the components.
Got the bike all dialed in and fits me perfectly, like the Columbus steel frame.
Hate taking parts from a nice riding bike but would really complete the more fair comparison.

only vote that counts :)

The Neuron would frame would be more suited to your way of riding I think

Correct, Im the deciding vote but can be influenced ;)

The Neuron would be more comfortable for longer rides and the 7003 is stiffer for sprints and time trials.

I vote for the Neuron frame. I think the 700X series round tube aluminum bikes were an evolutionary dead-end. It's just too stiff. I had a Performance parts bike with 700X tubing which I bought for the groupset. I rode it less ~7 miles and had to come right back home because the ride was so harsh. I couldn't wait to tear it down and harvest the parts. Later bikes used 60XX aluminum, and later still hydroforming. Both of these made aluminum bikes more comfortable. For a while I commuted on a Giant Avail bike and it was not harsh at all. It was a fine riding bike really. But the earlier 700X skinny tube aluminum bikes earned them the reputation of being harsh riding.

The OP already knows that the aluminum bike rides great. Myself, I raced a Raleigh Pro and a Chicago Schwinn Paramount and a Bianchi Specialissima Super Corsa and various other high-end steel bikes over the years, and I'd take that aluminum bike over any of them.

Nothing wrong with steel: I just prefer the effect that the torsional rigidity of such aluminum frames has on high-speed descending and on full-on climbing.

Plus, as noted in the various vintage Bicycling! magazines that SpeedOfLite has been posting lately, the consensus of the writers of articles on aluminum Cannondales and Treks was that they were as comfortable as or more comfortable than the comparable steel bikes of the era. That, of course, was before the myth that aluminum bikes ride harshly had hardened into dogma.

As I noted in the intro post, the tubes are like Colnago master profile which is larger and 4 big sides and 4 smaller sides, if you have seen one or the C40/C50 carbon, the shape is very similar. Also I think the carbon bits really help. As Trakhak noted the myth that aluminum bikes ride harshly had hardened into dogma and I was still fooled until this experience. There is also this:

Aluminium alloys are important for transport applications because they are light, which improves fuel efficiency. But, their fatigue properties are notoriously poor compared to steel of similar strength

I find that polls like this are useful because as I watch the votes come in (on polls that I've created) it becomes clear to me which option I'm hoping will "win the vote." I find flipping a coin to be similarly useful for decision making -- while the coin is in the air, I can tell which way I'm hoping it will land.

Evidently, it's all in the engineering and quality of fabrication. If you haven't seen it before, here's a report from the late '90's on the results of fatigue tests of high-end aluminum, carbon, steel, and titanium bike frames.

From the conclusion of the report:

"The myth of early failure of aluminum compared with always-superior titanium and steel can be set aside." (Spoiler: two aluminum frames and one carbon frame completed the fatigue testing without any failures. None of the steel or titanium frames did.)

The testers did note that the failures in the tested steel and titanium frames could have been avoided by the use of more care in the design and fabrication of the frames.

The whole report is fascinating and well worth a read.

I have an '03 Casati Dardo with Deda shaped tubing labeled V107 - which as far as I can tell is 7003 AL.
And I like it. I ride this bike as often as any bike I own.
(Though I did ride the Ron Cooper on last night's ride :) )

The 7003 deddacciai was used by Jan Ulllrich, Eric Zabel and several of Deutsche Telekom in their Pinarello Prince frames. It was also used by Marco Pantani on his bianchi race bike. Cannondale Alcoa Alcalyte 6061, Giant Alcoa 6061T6 and Alcoa CU92, Trek Alpha SLR,ZR and ZX being custom made 6061 aluminium as well as Specialized A1 6061 were also very comfortable compared to the 7003. The Columbus Altec 2 and Altec 2+ (both 7005 series)as well as the Easton Elite Taperwall were more comfy than the 7003 . As for the Easton scandium frames, they have a tendancy to break over the time.

Some great racers and builders!
My 7003 is a Cramerotti, named for Guisseppe Cramerotti. an Italian, ex-racer, who moved to Vancouver and sold his builds via Campione Cycles. As I mentioned, it looks much like the similar Colnago Dream model.

Of course the answer here is keep them both!

My first aluminum bike was a 1990 Trek 1000 which I rode for years while I was primarily a mountain biker. It gave me a bias against aluminum bikes as I finished every ride feeling like someone was beating me with it. I later got a Wilier Alpe D’Huez with the carbon fork and gimmick carbon stays and it’s a wonderful bike that is still in my stable almost 20 years later. I think once you get past having one bike for every purpose (you know road bike, errand bike, rain bike, gravel bike, etc) a quality aluminum bike is a nice addition to a collection. Aluminum bikes also make a nice option for wet weather riding if you don’t have a plastic bike in the collection.

My first aluminium bike was a merida al bon Mountain bike, aluminium bonded front triangle and cromoly stays, I still have it in my stable and it is one of my favorite bikes. I have two aluminium race bike projects including a Daccordi Fly and Veneto Art Decor.

Yes this looks to be the case.
It looks and rides soo nice I dont want to take its bits.
Now if I want to get the Neuron riding again, it maybe hard to find a donor setup like this campy chorus, that I can proceed with plan. Maybe I should not ride the donor before disassembly, but really was worth it for remembering the reality of a nice AL ride.

That wasn't the aluminum frame. At a guess, it was a matter of tire width and pressure and possibly fit issues. (And maybe a bit of confirmation bias.)

The 1000 used the same frame as the 1200, with different components. The 1200 is the bike that Bicycling! magazine compared favorably to the identically equipped (steel) Trek 560, as reviewed in an issue thoughtfully posted a couple of months ago by SpeedOfLite.

From that review:

"For the first time, we have been able to directly compare two almost identically equipped and dimensioned bicycles---identical save for the critical difference in frame material. Remarkably, the results are unanimous, unequivocal, and plain to see. That is the sort of consensus editors are supposed to like. I suppose I do, but it is a bit sad to see the faithful steel bike taking it all on the chin. After all, steel has served us well for decades; most cyclists tend to think it will continue to do so for some time."

The consensus he's referring to is made clear in the concluding paragraph, which notes that, since the components and geometries of the bikes are effectively identical, the evaluation has entirely to do with the differences in ride characteristics:

"In this area, there is no doubt. The aluminum 1200 has a suitable confluence of resolute rigidity and protective comfort. The steel 560 is stiff enough to charge ahead, but its susceptibility to punishing pavement leaves a lot to be desired."

Interestingly, the two suggestions for improvement of the 1200 were to decrease the rake of the fork (the overly stable ride being described, deliciously, as "Midwestern") and to upgrade to an aluminum fork. (I agree about the aluminum fork upgrade; my two favorite bikes have aluminum forks.)