Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Is it true that aluminum does not last long?

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
#21 ·
I rode a C-Dale aluminum MTB for a couple years around 1990. Sold it to a friend who still rides the frame. I've ridden a Specialized aluminum road bike for 8 years now on rough urban streets - no problem.
 
#22 ·
sean salach said:
Well, you are getting into the area of companies cutting corners to save money/pass that saved money on to you. Performance cuts some corners on that frame with lack of marketing, but the company making them also has to cut ALOT of corners to offer them for such a ridiculously low price. There's a thread on this forum about one just breaking. I own one, and would be more than happy with 3 years of use out of a $100 frame.
Click to expand...
And there are literally dozens of threads about broken Treks and Fishers. Come to think of it, there are threads about almost every maufacture of bike cracking here or there. To attribute any more or less durability to his Access frame is PURE speculation.
 
Save
Like Like
#23 ·
waterdude said:
And there are literally dozens of threads about broken Treks and Fishers. Come to think of it, there are threads about almost every maufacture of bike cracking here or there. To attribute any more or less durability to his Access frame is PURE speculation.
Click to expand...
Dear Captain Obvious,

This ENTIRE thread is speculation, and in fact, speculation is EXACTLY what he asked for in the original post.
 
#24 ·
sean salach said:
Dear Captain Obvious,

This ENTIRE thread is speculation, and in fact, speculation is EXACTLY what he asked for in the original post.
Click to expand...
My bad. It's true. If only the OP would've included the make/model in the original post, you could've told him that cheap POS would break sooner than later, and we could have been done with it. :thumbsup:
 
Save
Like Like
#25 ·
Speculation eh? Ok lets have a look at some accelerated fatigue testing instead... http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

Oops. That can't be right, the Aluminium frames comfortably outperformed all other materials. I don't believe a word of it, I'm much happier with ill informed forum bollocks.

Ignore that testing. Sorry I brought it up. As you were. Aluminium doesn't last as long. That feels much better, I'm back in lockstep with those who know.
 
#28 ·
nuffink said:
Speculation eh? Ok lets have a look at some accelerated fatigue testing instead... http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe/frame_fatigue_test.htm

Oops. That can't be right, the Aluminium frames comfortably outperformed all other materials. I don't believe a word of it, I'm much happier with ill informed forum bollocks.

Ignore that testing. Sorry I brought it up. As you were. Aluminium doesn't last as long. That feels much better, I'm back in lockstep with those who know.
Click to expand...
Aluminum has a lower fatigue strength period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S-N_curves.PNG

Also notice that most of those steel frames from the Sheldon Brown link failed at the lugs, i.e. the weakest points.

Two good things about steel from personal experience:

1) I bent the chainstays on a road bike, had my LBS bend them back and align frame. Aluminum does not survive bending very well.

2) A good friend ran into a parking block and busted BOTH of the head tube lugs free. Took it to a local builder and had it re-brazed. Still rides it.

I'm still not trying to say Aluminum is a bad choice. It actually makes a lot of sense for a lot of applications. On the other hand, I think steel makes more sense for the extended and at some times extremely harsh beatings a mountain bike frame takes.
 
Save
Like Like
#29 ·
dickt3030 said:
Aluminum has a lower fatigue strength period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:S-N_curves.PNG.
Click to expand...
And yet cunning manufacturers seem to be able to overcome that and produce Aluminium bike frames that last longer than other materials. Who'd have thought that product design was capable of working with a material's physical properties? I though it was all about colour schemes and stuff like that.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Actually...

grossen said:
Thank you everyone for your opinions. So it sounds like, judging by those links that you posted, and most of your opinions, that I am okay with a performance Access 2010 frame because their aluminum frame is pretty heavy and beefy (large tube diameter). Plus I'm not that big, i'm 5'9" and 170 pounds. But if I was a weight weeny with a 3 pound aluminum frame, then I would have to worry about my frame cracking on me in 5 years.
Click to expand...
The Access is a pretty light frame. Mine was like 3.5 pounds for my 2003-ish 18" frame. I bought it used and treated in an unknown manner by the previous owner (he was actually a freerider :eek: so it was probably thrashed... it looked pretty thrashed) and it was my race bike for 2 or 3 years with no issues under my 200 pound ass.

My Access 29er frame is actually lighter at 3.2 pounds :eek: . Granted, I weighed it on the digital postal scale at work, and who knows the accuracy of that thing, but it's probably in the ballpark.

I know somebody on this board already cracked an Access29er, if that means anything.

It all depends on how it was made. Gary Fisher tends to push the limits of what alu can do, hence the high failure rate. They're crazy light, but have some nice compliance.

A lot of 'cheaper' heavier frames last forever... but some cheaper frames fail because of bad sloppy overheated or underheated welds with no penetration or impurities.

I've had the same Giant Yukon since 2000. Granted I don't put many miles on her since she is now my city bike with panniers, and I don't get air or anything. I have been known to load it down with 40 pounds of groceries in the bags and plow through the potholes back home with 1" tires.

Point is, its all about how the frame was made. If it was a lower rent good brand frame, it will probably last forever if ridden for it's intended purpose. They aren't trying to push the materials. High end lightweight stuff tends to break more, regardless of materials. It just so happens that Ti is less prone to cracking by the nature of Ti, but I've seen more cracked Ti frames than aluminum in my time. Might have something to do with the folks who buy Ti tend to ride much harder and more often than average folks.
 
#33 ·
waterdude said:
My bad. It's true. If only the OP would've included the make/model in the original post, you could've told him that cheap POS would break sooner than later, and we could have been done with it. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I didn't say it would, I said that there are a lot more unknowns with that frame(which I own as well) because of how inexpensive it is. He seemed like he was misinterpreting earlier responses to mean that cheap = strong/longevity. There's usually a point where you cross over from cheap and inexpensive but durable to cheap but low quality. The Access frame may or may not have crossed that line. :thumbsup:
 
Discussion starter · #34 ·
So do I need to go with the big named brands like Scott, Trek, Cannondale, etc. because those are the ones that seem to perform well on those tests that nuffink mentioned. Scott especially tends to have very good ratings from that testing company in Germany. All their bikes got a high performance mark for the accelerated fatigue test.
 
#35 ·
IMO

Aluminum Frame = Glorified Beer Can.

Doesn't make it bad, and I've had my fare share of AL bikes, and most held up to my DJ'ing and hammering...and I do like DH bikes quite a bit, but, I prefer steel, not just for strength but for its riding characteristics over aluminum. Maybe something for you to consider.
 
Save
Like Like
#36 ·
I think you might be looking way too far into the strength stuff. Do you break tons of bikes? How much do you weigh? Most of the big companies will warranty broken frames if they truly break on their own and not from you crashing them.

What brands are you leaning towards and most importantly what models are you thinking about

grossen said:
So do I need to go with the big named brands like Scott, Trek, Cannondale, etc. because those are the ones that seem to perform well on those tests that nuffink mentioned. Scott especially tends to have very good ratings from that testing company in Germany. All their bikes got a high performance mark for the accelerated fatigue test.
Click to expand...
 
#38 ·
What about carbon fibre or bamboo frames, how long will they last? :p

You'd need to go into how each frame was engineered to answer the original question... (Endurance limits etc as from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit)

I'm more interested in how the design compromises have affected what the frame is like to ride regardless of material-for example, sure, it's possible to design a frame to be pretty much indestructible under normal conditions, but it'll weigh a lot, and who wants that?
 
#40 ·
Whacked said:
referencing wikipedia as a competent source...

now THAT is funny :)
Click to expand...
Regarding a material, like aluminum/steel, or structural analysis? Sure, why not? As far as I've seen, nearly all of the credibility issues have been with political and corporate tampering with political and corporate pages.
 
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
About this Discussion
70 Replies
47 Participants
Last post:
jn35646
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
posts
16M
members
534K
Since
1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Discussion Downhill - Freeride California - Norcal Shocks and Suspension Passion