Compared to carbon, steel and alumimum tend to be more compliant, but it really depends on frame design and builder. Don't overthink it, just get the bike that feels best for the riding you do.

 

I'd say that compared to aluminum, steel and carbon CAN be more compliant. And carbon can be the "most" compliant, depending on how it is laid up. Or it can ride like a jackhammer.

 

The frame material is not likely to tame down pock marked trails. I ride them with a MTB that has a suspension fork, better than rigid but at commute speeds a headache in a half mile or so. And you can only drop the tire pressure so far on MTB tires before you wreck the sidewalls. My fat bike is better than the MTB at commute pressure but still... The thing that tames the pocks down is dropping the tire pressure - more drag but a smooth ride! With my road bikes, I compared an aluminum sus Novara Corsa to it's very much older version in steel. The difference is not dramatic which surprised me. The Aluminum Corsa got stolen but with the better than decent ride quality of the Steel Corsa the alum won't get replaced. Weight is about a wash, no sus or fenders the steely is about the same. So unless there is something that is fit related about the Surly I don't think it is going to do much but weigh more.

 

I agree that lower tire pressure can smooth things out but like you mentioned that causes more resistance. When I'm commuting to work during the winter on my fatbike, I'm always trying to be as fast and efficient as possible. About 1/4 of my ride is on plowed roads with a hard, icy surface so it's always a compromise on my tire pressure.

Compared to my regular rigid mountain bike (the Marin) I use during the spring and fall to commute on, the Fatboy rides way better because of the tires. I don't want a suspension fork on either one as I want them to be simple and low maintenance. I've got other bikes with full suspension and front suspension so I know how good things can be but I'm just wondering if a Cro-mo steel frame fatbike is as noticeable of a difference in ride quality as you find with a road or mtb compared to aluminum? Carbon bikes are out of my price range and for what I do, I'm not interested in them.

 

I may be alone in this, but there's something about the vibration quality or frequency of aluminum that messes with my wrists. I tend to have RSI issues, and every aluminum frame I've owned has exacerbated that. I always have to add *something* to dampen one of those bikes, whether it be gel pads and thick bartape on a cross bike, or carbon bars on my fatbike.

The fat tires don't really help, the buzz of the knobs even on smooth concrete just goes right up into my hands. Carbon bars really helped mitigate that. So, if you find you're having issues with a rigid, IMO Salsa carbon bars are a great addition.

 

I have six steel bikes and one pretty cheap aluminum bike, which happens to be my fat bike. Aluminum tubes can be drawn out to be very compliant. However, YES, THE FREQUENCY at which the vibrations are transmitted is a different issue. I ride to the trails on pavement (if not snow covered) on Vanhelgas. The farther the traihead, the more numb I get. First the hands, then feet, then butt, then pretty much everything else. Much worse on the Vanhelgas than on my summer tires with smaller knobs. Luckily, not on issue once I hit the dirt or snow, since I am moving around a lot more on the bike.

 

IMO the Ice Cream Truck is overbuilt and does not provide a super compliant ride. I plan on putting some carbon bars on it eventually to tame it a wee bit. That said, I love mine.

 

Pock marked, or boot holed trails suck, period. My friends with Bluto forks complain about the lack of rear squish. I just try to ride to the side or use my elbows and knees to help some while trying to float over as much as possible. The best thing to do is just get through it and then clear it from your mind - focus instead on the nicer or more fun sections you ride.

As for the original question, it's been proven that the same bike in Al is lighter than steel. So unless you're comparing very different bikes the fat tires will mask any frame material differences. Otherwise you will only notice a difference when lifting or weighing.

 

It probably depends on the bike. I have Bud/Lou and a Bluto so I don't think I could tell the difference between frame materials if you paid me. My current frame is an extremely stiff, beefy aluminum frame and it's not exactly harsh, at all.

Also, agreed on the above point that frame material can vary widely.

 

I have the exact same setup and I agree. I just don't see the harshness mentioned elsewhere.

 

A few years back I had an inexpensive spec allez that I bought new. I rode that bike all the time. Enjoyed the hell out of it, but it rode rough, like a road bike. Some of the guys I rode with convinced me that a new all carbon spec tarmac would ride much better. I sold the allez and spent big $$$ on a tarmac. It was awesome, about as awesome as the allez, but cost 4 times as much and still rode like a road bike...

So to answer your question, I say no.

 

That's interesting. My wife has an aluminum Giant road bike and I've got a Trek 520 steel road bike. I always thought hers rode rough and we switched one day last summer and she liked how comfortable my steel touring bike rode. Last summer I also built up a lugged, Trek 990 single track as a hardtail and I think it rides like a dream for a hardtail. I really like it.

I've never ridden a carbon fiber bike but in my experience most steel bikes ride better than aluminum. But, that said, I also built up a cheap, $100 Nashbar steel frame two years ago when I first got on my steel frame kick. I built it up using the parts off my aluminum Univega that was my commuter bike. The Nashbar frame was advertised as cro-mo but when the box arrived, the made in China POS had cro-mo/hi-ten listed on the box. The rear triangle was evidently hi-ten. The frame was quite heavy and when I rode it
I was disappointed. It didn't feel any different, just kinda dead. I then bought the used Marin frame off eBay and I was like "Wow!" the first time I rode it. I could immediately feel the difference. It's not like night and day or anything from aluminum, but a subtle difference in a good way. The Marin felt like it was helping to propel me up the hill. The small cracks in the bike path are a bit less jarring.

 

Titanium goes through the airport metal detector easier.

 

True story otherwise I would get stopped and stripped every time

 

The most comfortable road bike I've ever ridden was a Giant OCR - their 'sport tourer' with relaxed geometry, long wheelbase and clearance for wider tires.

Carbon through and through and that thing WAS a magic carpet. Better than steel.

 

can i feel the difference in frame material? yep.

i hated the way my old aluminum frame rode. (2 seasons on it) my new Wednesday is way better! (first year)

is it a major difference? (aluminum vs steel) no. does it make a difference? depends on the rider, terrain, etc. With 4-5" tires providing a significant amount of insulation between you and the trail, the frame material is less important. but, on the handful of fatbikes i've ridden i can tell the difference in the way it rides. not so much about small bump compliance but a more "lively" ride character from the frame.

 

Seeing as this is about fatbikes, not road bikes, I reckon the frame material has little effect, and your tyre compliance and pressures more effect.

However the fork makes a difference. It is long and cantilevered, so a fork that is excessively rigid fore and aft will be felt at the wrists IME, but that can be mitigated by bar and stem choice. The forks stiffness depends more on its construction than its material IMO.

I cannot comment on suspension forks because I wouldn't fit one to a fatbike.

 

I'm sure that there is some difference - I am sure that if compared back to back, the tarmac was smoother than the allez (for example). To me, the difference just isn't enough to be a big deal, especially with 4-5" tires. There is no real replacement for suspension.

I am gonna build up a super light, rigid, carbon race fatbike soon - and it is gonna ride like crap. 22-23 pounds, but crappy haha.

 

If you talk fat bike , you'll probably run 4 inch and + tires , with lower pressure so because of the tire , you won't be able to tell any difference of feel any shock absortion difference because of the tires.
Unless you always run them at higher pressure......

If you're thinking smaller tires on 700 , 650 or 26'' then , yes , like other stated , there is differences. I personally prefer Ti as my main MTB.
Fat bike :I don't care because of the size/pressure I'm running , as long as I can have my Rolloff on it....

 

As has been stated before you can make any frame material feel stiff or not by changing the tube sizes. Early aluminum bikes were typically very noodley. It wasn't until Gary Klein and then Cannondale made them with fat tubes that they got the stiff reputation they have today. So no you can not feel what a bike is made from in a blind test. You can often guess correctly in the real world because manufacturers still often follow the Klein/Cannondale model. But fat tires or no it is totally possible, at least for many people, to feel the difference between a stiff frame and a flexible one. Not as big a difference as on high pressure tires but a difference for sure. It will matter to some but not to others. Only way to tell is ride for your self.

 

Ive currently got a rigid aluminum Fatboy and sometimes it rides pretty rough on snow trails that have been pockmarked by footprints.

AND

In the summer I think rigid fatbikes kind of suck for riding on trails that can be easily traveled by regular skinny tired bikes.

So why would you look for a softer ride in the least likely options? Just curious, as it's clear you recognize that a rigid bike rides rough, but you're looking at the frame material vs simply adding suspension.

You complain of steel being heavy, but you would ride steel with the additional weight over aluminum and a suspension fork with a similar weight.

Rigid does ride rough, in fact, they ride rigid.

Get a suspension fork, problem solved.

All this yammer about frame materials and compliance is silliness, a compliant frame would be a noodle and no one would ride it. Most frames are stiff as that is their purpose.

Pick your frame based on how you like your bike to ride.

 

I don't want to deal with the maintenance and reduced steering precision of a single crown suspension fork like the Bluto. I simply wondered if a steel frame made the same difference in ride quality as it does on my other MTB's that are made from Columbus Thron or True Temper Ox tubing. This confirms my suspicions that the fat tires would mask any of the benefits a steel frame would provide in ride quality.

I really like steel frame bikes that are made from name brand tubing as they do ride really nice as MTB's or road bikes. Looks to me like it isn't the greatest material for fatbikes for how I use them.

 

ime it's not possible to categorise ride quality in terms of frame material

I've ridden steel frames that've given me double vision and blotchy hands on the descents and steel frames that have that wonderfully springy feel that fires them out of corners and up and over obstacles

By the same token I've had aluminium frames where I've felt like a passenger and aluminium frames that've been weapons of trail destruction

Carbon frames that I could've ridden all week and carbon frames that've felt like noodles

They're all different.

 

I got a new CAAD12 last summer to replace my CAAD10 that was destroyed in a racing crash. Its ride is amazing and very smooth.
I actually think its smoother than my carbon Specialized Roubaix or any of my other road bikes.
I own 6 steel bikes also including a Rocky Mountain Sherpa touring bike and vintage steel Marinoni. I've got deades of riding experience on steel.
But this new Cannondale is one smooth machine. Don't knock it until you have ridden modern aluminum.
And yes, I am a retro grouch.....

 

interesting. I take these kinds of opinions seriously. i believe every word you said.

NO, i'm still not interested in an aluminum frame. I'm revoking your retro grouch card, please mail it and a $300 processing fee to me and i'll handle the rest.

 

As others have said, how a frame rides has more to do with the design and tubing selection than what material it's made out of. It might not be as noticeable on a fatbike as on a road racing bike, but the differences can be felt. Some stell bikes have that magic carpet ride, some just feel like crap. Same for the other materials. That said, I always prefer metal bike frames, especially for bikes that will be ridden hard in the woods. If you are doing it right, you will crash sometimes. Sometimes when you crash, your bike frame lands hard on a big rock. Sometimes when your bike frame lands hard on a rock, it breaks(if you have a carbon frame!), sometimes it just gets a dent (if you had a steel or titanium frame). Then you either come on the MTBR forums and whine about your broken carbon frame that the manufacturer won't replace, or you brag to your friends about that epic crash as you ride your dented metal frame!

If you are racing groomed snowmobile tracks and want the lightest fatbike you can find, go ahead and buy a carbon frame. If you are riding trails, get something made out of metal. My order of preference is: Titanium, steel, then aluminum. Of my 6 bikes non are carbon or aluminum, plenty of titanium and steel.

I'm currently building up my first real fatbike, starting with a made in the USA steel frame. Could it be lighter if I went carbon? absolutely. Do I care? Nope!

 

If you are racing groomed snowmobile tracks and want the lightest fatbike you can find, go ahead and buy a carbon frame. If you are riding trails, get something made out of metal. My order of preference is: Titanium, steel, then aluminum. Of my 6 bikes non are carbon or aluminum, plenty of titanium and steel.

Or if you actually ride and race trails and want something that's not an anchor, buy a carbon fatbike.

 

I'll toss in my $0.02 being a 12-months-of-the-year fat rider who has had aluminum frame and fork (Fatboy SE) and a steel frame and fork (Nashbar Pugsley knockoff). The aluminum bike creaked and moaned all the time, had a harsh ride feel, and would fatigue me after 3-4 hours in the saddle. The steel bike (generic 4130 cro-mo) was much more forgiving and was quiet, made long days in the saddle much more comfortable than the Fatboy. I did notice more flex out of the steel fork than the aluminum while cornering / braking but it was of no real concern and made for happier wrists by the end of the day.

I sold the Fatboy but I still own the steel bike. It just rides nicer over varied terrain IMO.

 

That's interesting. Two years ago I bought a Nashbar MTB frame and didn't experience any of the ride benefits of steel. I felt like I wasted $100 and should have known better. I then bought a random used Marin frame off eBay and it had that great steel ride.

My Fatboy is creak free. Overall it's been a really good bike.

 

It must be the middle of winter, some of these threads are just mind boggling.

People, go ride your damn bikes, who flippin cares who made them or what they're made from, any bike is better than no bike, and riding a bike is the whole purpose for mtbr.

 

Been riding every day in single digit temps this past week. Still fun to get some brand loyal people riled up on the interweb forums.

 

so your whole purpose of posting negative opinions of specific brands is to get people "riled up"? here's some negative rep for you.

 

Wouldn't it be appropriate to consider bike weight as proportionate to rider weight, instead of an addition to total weight? And frame weight as a proportion of total bike weight? I've put on a lighter seat and noticed the difference.

 

Headwind,
It wasn't my intention to come off like I think only steel bikes ride well. I've got an open mind about it, I was wondering if the difference I felt in the past with MTB's was present with fatbikes.

I've got a large number of bikes between my own and my family's bikes and overall the steel ones have ridden better as a general rule. I've certainly not ridden everything out there and am always open to it if given a chance. If Ti wasn't so expensive I'd have a titanium hardtail as I've always wanted one.

It's good to hear that modern aluminum bikes can provide a good ride. For the budget I usually stick with on new bikes, aluminum is generally the material available.

 

Some Things About Our Steel | Spews | The Information Hole | Surly Bikes

I have ridden thousands of miles on Surly bikes, and their steel is just fine. I've ridden hundreds of miles on Reynolds 853, 531, and Zona, and can't tell that much of a difference. Perhaps I'm not picky enough.