Lightest mainstream aluminum frames

[mythical]

Indeed, many of the top mainstream aluminum frames epitomize the cutting edge, just like their carbon siblings, whereas cheaper carbon (hopefully) means trickled down technology of yesteryear while cutting corners on material and build quality. There's no comparison really. The idea with lightweight aluminum is getting top value for money, and for a modest price compared to carbon. Personally, I find that both carbon and aluminium are only worthwhile when done right.

Similarly priced carbon bikes typically have a much lower component spec than aluminium versions. Example: look at what an Ultegra-equiped CAAD12 goes for compared to its ‘16 SuperSix Evo Hi-Mod brother. A similar groupset with an equivalent carbon frame will literally cost double. Or you can get an older SuperSix Evo (not Hi-Mod) with Shimano 105 for the same price as a CAAD12 with Ultegra. The tradeoff for the lust for carbon: performance.There's no comparison really.

Imagine your choice to be between an entrance model Émonda SLR/SuperSix Evo Hi-Mod/Tarmac or getting a Specialized Allez SL/CAAD12/Émonda ALR frameset and spending the difference on parts. You can spend on an entry level carbon bike that will always make you wanting better, especially when those cheap parts need replacing, or get a race-worthy aluminum steed yet for the same money. The Gallery section on this board features numerous examples.

For a given price, if my options are a lower end trickled down carbon frame for the sake of carbon or ride the culmination of aluminium technology, my choice is obvious: metal!

[Devon]

+1

Carbon for the sake of carbon is dumb.

[michel2]

that goes for any get of material...
i had a bmc cross, bought it online...... i that was the most horrible thing i ever owned, that thing was so unbelievable rock hard, i suppose it goes to show one should ride a bike before buying it.
to that also want to ad .. as the p.e. song, dont believe the hype, only reason manufactures are pushing for aluminium is to sell more bikes, canondale excepted perhaps.
allly still does have a max life span and still needs to designed properly,...how much does specialised want agian for there sworks ally bike.....its offensive me thinks !

[jimborello]

that Kinesis Aithein looks awesome, specially the lime color scheme. It is a pity it is almost impossible to bring it to Mexico without paying a lot of taxes which make it unbuyable

[SLCBrandon]

This past year I rode my SW Allez double of what I rode my two SW Tarmac's. I'm not saying its "better" but there is something about it I just love. I agree you shouldn't buy carbon for carbon sake.

[vejnemojnen]

Nobody said that you should get crabon for the sake of CF.

I was only citing that contemporary budget CF offerings are less harsh, more supple than ally, and in lot of cases, they do not cost much more than the metal ones.

For a beerbelly equipped rider, who has weak lower back, that can make a hwege difference

[rpenmanparker]

I'm pretty sure that you can buy lower end carbon frames now that are lighter, cheaper, stronger, and offer a better ride than any of these top flight aluminum models. Just sayin ... why?

Because I already have the carbon.

[Multebear]

As mentioned earlier, I think that "high-end" aluminum is overrated. There's no high-end feeling on my Caad 10. But I put a lot of miles in it. If you don't ride several days in a row, I don't think it's a problem. But I would prefer CF over aluminum any day. Even cheap frames. Even the chinese FM066SL over Caad 10. The only reason I ride the Caad 10 is, that it's for winter training. The risk of crashing on icy roads just makes the aluminum frame more attractive.

[Marin]

Lightweight alu will probably be damaged (at least dented) more easily than a CF frame.

[rpenmanparker]

Lightweight alu will probably be damaged (at least dented) more easily than a CF frame.

Repost error.

[rpenmanparker]

Lightweight alu will probably be damaged (at least dented) more easily than a CF frame.

I agree. You choose aluminum in a crash-likely situation because it is cheap to replace relative to top end CF, not because it is less damage prone. It isn't. But if you accept the validity of no-name Chinese CF, then that is the better choice. Cheaper yet, and less damage prone in a crash.

[Devon]

From my experience, 100% of my carbon frames have cracked from general riding/racing, 0% of my Aluminium frames have. None have ever been crashed and I have owned a 50/50 share of the two materials.

One carbon frame delaminated spontaneously at the bottom bracket (Scott CR1), and the second, a less-than-a-year-old BMC, cracked where the top tube and seat tube joined. My Aluminium frames have received scratches and minor stone chips and kept rolling, while covering almost double the mileage of their plastic counterparts.

[duvivr6]

I've had the same experience as Devon, sadly some frames I really liked cracked. Mine have been from uses/crashes but still sucks.
I ride an Aluminum Canyon and have a Carbon bike also but gets less use for some reason...

[prebsy]

So the Rose xeon RS (mentioned on page 2), sub 1000g? Can anyone confirm that?

[mimason]

Probably no manufacturer wants to talk about this but carbon frames cost very little to make. Unpainted frames are around $250. The paint job costs more than that. Thats why Made in Italy is allowed because over 50% is still done in Italy.

There are a lot of warranties on carbon frames too. I ride and prefer carbon but 2/3 of my last carbon bikes were warrantied for one reason or another. Its very common and mopped under the rug. Probably not so much for casual riders but if you ride hard and use your equipment then the probability increases. In my cases there were no cracks but cable hangers coming off or carbon separation.

Sorry for ot