Old steel vs. new aluminum - Page 3

05-23-2004, 09:03 AM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:17:25 GMT, Beans Baxter
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Thanks to everybody that helped me out with my question about upgrading a
>Panasonic DX-4000. I have another question related to that bike. I have
>the opportunity to purchase a used Trek 1000 and I was wondering what
>people's opinion of the two frames are.
>
>For those of you unfamilar with the Panasonic, it's a lugged frame made
>with Tange 2 double-butted tubing. The Trek 1000 is a year 2000 model
>aluminum frame. Thanks for your help.
>
>Beans Baxter

As others have said, hard to compare them. Both are nice bikes.

Geometry and fitting will be the big differences. I have one bike with
tight angles- probably similar to the Trek. And one with more relaxed
angles- probably similar to the Panasonic. They ride differently. The
tight one is zippy and twitchy and fun. The relaxed one is steady and
smooth and fun.

Depending on my mood and where I am riding, I'll use either bike. When
I have had either one off the road, I am happy with the one that
works, and yet I miss riding the other one. If the Trek feels good and
you have money and room for two bikes, get it? You can always sell one
or the other later if need be.

05-23-2004, 01:43 PM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:17:25 GMT, Beans Baxter wrote:

> For those of you unfamilar with the Panasonic, it's a lugged frame made
> with Tange 2 double-butted tubing. The Trek 1000 is a year 2000 model
> aluminum frame. Thanks for your help.

I have a a ~1990 Trek 1100 and the one thing I hate about it is the
bottem end (where the bottom bracket goes). I'm not a big guy (5'8",
180lbs) but I can twist the bottom bracket so the chaing scrapes the
derailleur when I stand or pedal real hard. I now have a low end Ti
bike and I love it (Mongoose RX100). I can't twist that bike.

Oh, I rode the 1100 for about 35K miles, I still have it but I put
most of my miles on the RX100.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Text only)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (SourceForge)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (HCS II)

05-23-2004, 01:43 PM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:17:25 GMT, Beans Baxter wrote:

> For those of you unfamilar with the Panasonic, it's a lugged frame made
> with Tange 2 double-butted tubing. The Trek 1000 is a year 2000 model
> aluminum frame. Thanks for your help.

I have a a ~1990 Trek 1100 and the one thing I hate about it is the
bottem end (where the bottom bracket goes). I'm not a big guy (5'8",
180lbs) but I can twist the bottom bracket so the chaing scrapes the
derailleur when I stand or pedal real hard. I now have a low end Ti
bike and I love it (Mongoose RX100). I can't twist that bike.

Oh, I rode the 1100 for about 35K miles, I still have it but I put
most of my miles on the RX100.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Text only)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (SourceForge)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (HCS II)

05-23-2004, 01:43 PM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:17:25 GMT, Beans Baxter wrote:

> For those of you unfamilar with the Panasonic, it's a lugged frame made
> with Tange 2 double-butted tubing. The Trek 1000 is a year 2000 model
> aluminum frame. Thanks for your help.

I have a a ~1990 Trek 1100 and the one thing I hate about it is the
bottem end (where the bottom bracket goes). I'm not a big guy (5'8",
180lbs) but I can twist the bottom bracket so the chaing scrapes the
derailleur when I stand or pedal real hard. I now have a low end Ti
bike and I love it (Mongoose RX100). I can't twist that bike.

Oh, I rode the 1100 for about 35K miles, I still have it but I put
most of my miles on the RX100.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Text only)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (SourceForge)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (HCS II)

05-23-2004, 01:43 PM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:17:25 GMT, Beans Baxter wrote:

> For those of you unfamilar with the Panasonic, it's a lugged frame made
> with Tange 2 double-butted tubing. The Trek 1000 is a year 2000 model
> aluminum frame. Thanks for your help.

I have a a ~1990 Trek 1100 and the one thing I hate about it is the
bottem end (where the bottom bracket goes). I'm not a big guy (5'8",
180lbs) but I can twist the bottom bracket so the chaing scrapes the
derailleur when I stand or pedal real hard. I now have a low end Ti
bike and I love it (Mongoose RX100). I can't twist that bike.

Oh, I rode the 1100 for about 35K miles, I still have it but I put
most of my miles on the RX100.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Text only)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (SourceForge)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (HCS II)

05-23-2004, 01:43 PM

On Sun, 23 May 2004 00:17:25 GMT, Beans Baxter wrote:

> For those of you unfamilar with the Panasonic, it's a lugged frame made
> with Tange 2 double-butted tubing. The Trek 1000 is a year 2000 model
> aluminum frame. Thanks for your help.

I have a a ~1990 Trek 1100 and the one thing I hate about it is the
bottem end (where the bottom bracket goes). I'm not a big guy (5'8",
180lbs) but I can twist the bottom bracket so the chaing scrapes the
derailleur when I stand or pedal real hard. I now have a low end Ti
bike and I love it (Mongoose RX100). I can't twist that bike.

Oh, I rode the 1100 for about 35K miles, I still have it but I put
most of my miles on the RX100.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Text only)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (SourceForge)
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (HCS II)

05-23-2004, 02:01 PM

> My opinion is to go with the steel frame. I would worry about the life
span
> of the Aluminium frame frame. Also narrower tubes are generally more aero
> than fat tubes. The Aluminium frame is probably a bit lighter but I know
> that overall the weight difference is not significant. (For example I
would
> be better off not eating chips and drinking beer.)
>
> Marty
>

Fear of life span is unwarrented. Both frames are designed to similar risk
standards, regardless of material. I'd expect either to last more than
50,000 km unless you do lots of pogo jumping (which isn't a common use for a
road frame).

Bruce

05-23-2004, 02:01 PM

> My opinion is to go with the steel frame. I would worry about the life
span
> of the Aluminium frame frame. Also narrower tubes are generally more aero
> than fat tubes. The Aluminium frame is probably a bit lighter but I know
> that overall the weight difference is not significant. (For example I
would
> be better off not eating chips and drinking beer.)
>
> Marty
>

Fear of life span is unwarrented. Both frames are designed to similar risk
standards, regardless of material. I'd expect either to last more than
50,000 km unless you do lots of pogo jumping (which isn't a common use for a
road frame).

Bruce

05-23-2004, 02:01 PM

> My opinion is to go with the steel frame. I would worry about the life
span
> of the Aluminium frame frame. Also narrower tubes are generally more aero
> than fat tubes. The Aluminium frame is probably a bit lighter but I know
> that overall the weight difference is not significant. (For example I
would
> be better off not eating chips and drinking beer.)
>
> Marty
>

Fear of life span is unwarrented. Both frames are designed to similar risk
standards, regardless of material. I'd expect either to last more than
50,000 km unless you do lots of pogo jumping (which isn't a common use for a
road frame).

Bruce

05-23-2004, 02:01 PM

> My opinion is to go with the steel frame. I would worry about the life
span
> of the Aluminium frame frame. Also narrower tubes are generally more aero
> than fat tubes. The Aluminium frame is probably a bit lighter but I know
> that overall the weight difference is not significant. (For example I
would
> be better off not eating chips and drinking beer.)
>
> Marty
>

Fear of life span is unwarrented. Both frames are designed to similar risk
standards, regardless of material. I'd expect either to last more than
50,000 km unless you do lots of pogo jumping (which isn't a common use for a
road frame).

Bruce