3 ms·

The Trek 500. It's a bicycle. It's a steel bicycle, which is out of favor these days, but Trek still makes a few each year. And they haven't really changed the

The Trek 500. It's a bicycle. It's a steel bicycle, which is out of favor these days, but Trek still makes a few each year. And they haven't really changed the design since it was introduced in the 80's. Why? Because it's the perfect bicycle. At least, if you're doing a very particular thing. I rode one from the Oregon Coast to Long Island. It was an unsupported tour, so I had about 50 pounds of gear strapped to it the whole way. While my companions suffered various breakdowns and issues, the 500 was rock solid. It doesn't get fancy on components-- no disk breaks or electronic shifting. Everything on it can be easily repaired, removed, or replaced with your two hands and a compact multi-tool. The steel frame will stand up to any manner of abuse. Hearing about the whole tough-as-nails thing, you assume it won't be that pleasing to ride. You assume wrong.

criddell 10y ago
I have a mail order steel-frame bicycle (Windsor Tourist) and I think it's the springiness of the steel frame that makes it so nice to ride. I bought the bike 5 years ago planning to ride it for a year then upgrade and have no desire to upgrade. There's nothing I would want to upgrade to because it's pretty much perfect.
cellularmitosis 10y ago
There is a counterintuitive slump in quality of experience along the progression of bicycle frame materials technology. One would expect each point along the progression to be completely superior than the last: steel, aluminum, carbon fiber. I had to learn the hard way that isn't the case. Steel is flexible (comfortable ride) but heavy. Aluminum came along and offered lighter frames, but the frames had to be made much stiffer to avoid the perils of repeated stress fatigue (steel's asymptote for strength after repeated stress is some fraction of its original strength. Aluminum's asymptote is zero -- flex it enough and it will eventually accumulate micro strew fractures and break). The progression to aluminum was a trade off: ride comfort for weight. Carbon fiber came along and offered a no-compromise solution: the flexibility (ride comfort) of steel, and lighter than aluminum. Unfortunately, the cost is much higher with carbon fiber. If you are on a budget, I'd agree that you're better off with steel than aluminum.
- InitialLastName 10y ago
  I'd say steel and aluminum come out about even in terms of their value for bicycles at the lower budget end Steel: - Pro: More repairable (bend it right back!) - Pro: More comfortable ride - Con: Heavier - Con: prone to rust if the finish gets marred Aluminum: - Pro: No corrosion, even when the paint is gone. - Pro: Lighter - Con: Not repairable - Con: less comfortable All this to say, I agree with you, but there are more considerations than weight and ride comfort. My beater bike (ride around and lock up in the city, through salt and snow and any random crap) is aluminum and cheap. My commute bike is steel and more expensive, but takes a bit more care.

criddell 10y ago

I have a mail order steel-frame bicycle (Windsor Tourist) and I think it's the springiness of the steel frame that makes it so nice to ride. I bought the bike 5 years ago planning to ride it for a year then upgrade and have no desire to upgrade. There's nothing I would want to upgrade to because it's pretty much perfect.

cellularmitosis 10y ago

There is a counterintuitive slump in quality of experience along the progression of bicycle frame materials technology. One would expect each point along the progression to be completely superior than the last: steel, aluminum, carbon fiber. I had to learn the hard way that isn't the case. Steel is flexible (comfortable ride) but heavy. Aluminum came along and offered lighter frames, but the frames had to be made much stiffer to avoid the perils of repeated stress fatigue (steel's asymptote for strength after repeated stress is some fraction of its original strength. Aluminum's asymptote is zero -- flex it enough and it will eventually accumulate micro strew fractures and break). The progression to aluminum was a trade off: ride comfort for weight. Carbon fiber came along and offered a no-compromise solution: the flexibility (ride comfort) of steel, and lighter than aluminum. Unfortunately, the cost is much higher with carbon fiber. If you are on a budget, I'd agree that you're better off with steel than aluminum.

InitialLastName 10y ago
I'd say steel and aluminum come out about even in terms of their value for bicycles at the lower budget end Steel: - Pro: More repairable (bend it right back!) - Pro: More comfortable ride - Con: Heavier - Con: prone to rust if the finish gets marred Aluminum: - Pro: No corrosion, even when the paint is gone. - Pro: Lighter - Con: Not repairable - Con: less comfortable All this to say, I agree with you, but there are more considerations than weight and ride comfort. My beater bike (ride around and lock up in the city, through salt and snow and any random crap) is aluminum and cheap. My commute bike is steel and more expensive, but takes a bit more care.