Why is this aluminium bike 2kg more than the non-Au?

sickparrot

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

So, it's just a typo? Still bewildering, though; this if from Halfords: Rigid steel frame without suspension for an easier ride. Excuse me?

No it's correct, steel frames are more flexible than aluminium and give a more comfortable ride, they're also longer lasting because al hardens even more over time and will eventually crack.

With a bike with suspension, a certain amount of the effort you're putting in merely goes to bouncing the suspension up and down (do not ever buy a bike with rear suspension unless you're jumping off mountains), so a rigid frame is quicker than a suspension frame.

Kernel_Sanders

photome wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that.

It was the 'without suspension for an easier ride' bit that I was querying.
What I'm really after is a lightweight narrow-wheeled bike with front suspension, flat bars and mudguards. A sort of tourer/hybrid suspension model then; do they exist?

andygb

ILW wrote: »

A high quality double butted steel frame can be as light as ali and rides so much better.

My first "real" racing bike was 531DB tubing and weighed 18lbs with light wheels way back in 1979.
You could probably find one on Ebay for £50.
I have NEVER ridden a bike weighing between 14 - 16 kilos, they must be very sluggish.:(

Kernel_Sanders

photome wrote: »

have a look at Paulscycles they often have some decent offers on older models

Rather disappointed with that site - looked at a few but none gives their weight, even this one which has aluminium everything (well nearly!) and carbon forks. (£500)

photome

carrerra crossfire 14.5kg £220 at the momet

http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_storeId_10001_catalogId_10151_productId_810653_langId_-1_categoryId_165534#tab2

there is a 10% off code which would bring it down to £200 plus 3% on quidco

looks a good deal to me

or the subway for £ 169 without suspension.

Not sure why you need front suspension if it is for road use

Marco_Panettone

Why are you that bothered about weight? You want a bike with front suspension - that's at least 2kg right there. What sort of riding are you looking to do?

Kernel_Sanders

OK well, it's all road riding (and a bit of pavement) but the roads here are in a pretty dire state and it's not just potholes, there's a lot of uneven sections which aren't so obvious (I'll be riding throughout the dark months). Didn't realize the weight penalty of suspension would be 2kg+ though. If it saves the cost of rectifying a buckled wheel though then I would probably put up with the extra weight. However, that might be a false economy if the Subway is £30 cheaper than the Carrerra Crossfire mentioned by Photome. Annoyingly though, that lack of suspension means a weight reduction of just 300g (18" & 20" are both 14.2kg). I really don't trust these weights on the Halfords website; the spec for frame material is stated as aluminium, then as alloy in the same list: http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_storeId_10001_catalogId_10151_productId_912131_langId_-1_categoryId_165534#tab2 I know an alloy can contain aluminium, but I'm still as confused as ever!

Fishingtime

What is the fascination with weight?
Unless you are going to be doing serious riding such as racing and time trials then 2kg weight difference is nothing.

custardy

Fishingtime wrote: »

What is the fascination with weight?
Unless you are going to be doing serious riding such as racing and time trials then 2kg weight difference is nothing.

In a bike? it makes a hell of a difference to how the bike feels/rides

custardy

personally,for your riding I wouldnt be having suspension
I would make do with a slightly wider tyres 25-28c on a 700c rim
whats the budget?

weight goes with price. you can get fairly light suspension forks if you are willing to pay
I recently sold an old set of SIDs with 60-80mm travel with magnesium stanchions
very light forks