Chuck's Tech Opinion: How to decide what to keep and what to change on a Raleigh Twenty, and Pedals!

As you work on a Twenty, you start to get a feel of the engineering. I find it useful to categorise: some parts are really well thought out and function well, others are merely adequate for their job and there's another category of redundant, useless, or poorly designed stuff. Then layered over that, some parts have elegance, possibly even beauty, while others are downright ugly. Add yet a further layer, namely weight, and a recipe emerges as to how to go about deciding what to keep and what to change. 

Take the pedals. In the photo below (starting top left and going anti-clockwise): originals off a BSA 20, modern MTB style polymer flatties (BBB brand) and a generic polymer trap-type pedal:

Both the modern pedals have reflectors, today a legal requirement for safety, whereas the R20 pedals do not. Now, this R20 pedal has a certain elegance, it's true, but it's also narrow. Uncomfortable over a length of time, especially in soft soled shoes, as your feet curl over it. The weights add another factor:

Pedal type	g per pair
R20	651
MTB Flatties	336
Polymer Cage	286

I think it's remarkable that the old R20 pedals weigh so much, nearly 1.5lb! I discarded the polymer cage, for two reasons: the bearings on one were notchy and I didn't like the style for this bike. I thought it would be funky to have the MTB flatties. Apart from the beautiful wide platform they provide, the reflectors for safety and the weight saving (a stonking 315g), they are also shorter (12.1 cm v 11.0 cm from crank to pedal tip) and thinner, both of which reduce the chance of a pedal touching the road in a corner. So, my choice is made to switch to the MTB Flatties. 

That all sounds great, but then I tried fitting the MTB Flatties and to my surprise while the diameters were comparable (9/16"), the threading was different! I wondered whether the cranks had some old English threading, but that seems like an odd explanation, because I've managed to get modern pedals on a R20 before and know that others have too. More likely, perhaps the threading tooling that Raleigh used was slightly different to modern standard. It could be just some R20s that were like this. I tried a few pedals and I found that most of them were too tight, but one or two modern pedals went in ok, but only on one crank. Whatever the reason, after playing about a bit with modern pedals, I now feel that for this project, I will stick with the original pedals. They are a basic, but serviceable design. The end cap prises off carefully with a thin screwdriver. Underneath, two spring clips and a washer to remove:

There are no BBs just a plain bearing. The axle at the top simply slides into what looks like a tapered sleeve in the pedal, then the washer with flats is added and the two spring clips to hold it all down. This one was gummed up and a quick clean and regrease worked wonders. They spin super smoothly now. At least they are hardly worn and have plenty of service to give. They'll clean up ok and add to the retro look. 

Now consider the light bracket:

What an ugly lump that is, and given modern lights, it's redundant too. It serves a purpose in the headset, that is to increase stack height by a few mm in order to prevent the top lock nut from bottoming out. But that function can be easily achieved with a small standard spacer. How much does this monstrosity weigh? 77g! That's about the weight of SEVEN AAA batteries! Wowsers. Guess where that's going? Yes, in the recycling bin. NB, you have to remove the front brake caliper to get the stem out in order to lift this off the headset (see my post a few days ago on that wire loop thingy that restricts the movement of the stem vertically).

Note that by just by changing pedals and ditching the light bracket, you could save nearly 400g. Astonishing. 

You can repeat this thought process for every other item on the R20, using the factors I suggested at the top of this post (I'm not considering maintenance items, such as brake pads, tyres, BBs, chain and cables):

Sturmey Archer hubs (both the front one and the rear epicyclic AW gear unit): 

Elegant, well thought out, very functional, design kudos, unique, a bit heavy, but worth it! Pretty when clean and polished! I would keep these in nearly every case, unless there was a radically different vision for a particular build. 

Chainset: 

They are not all the same. Some patterns are indeed beautiful, others look more functional, but they have some eye appeal, I like the stamped "Nottingham Knight". They function well if you can deal with cotter pins and can live with the heavy chromed steel.

Bottom bracket:

It's perfectly functional, and isn't heavy, so in my view, this comes down to condition, and how important it is for you to change the chainset/eliminate cotter pins. The axle is a solid thing, and very rarely needs replacement. So, a good service with new BBs is usually all that's needed if you stick with cottered cranks. However, if you want to open up the world of square taper chainsets, then I believe that the simplest and best option is to find a square taper axle that fits and retain the same bottom bracket cups and 1/4" BBs. If that's not possible, then face the shell to 73mm or even 68mm (the width of my BSA 20 shell is 77mm as best as I could measure it), and rethread to standard 24 tpi. Some say that you should fill the threads with with a suitable molten metal before re-threading, but I've also read that many people have had success just rethreading directly, but slightly deeper than the original threads. Clearly a specialist's job. Failing any of those, then a problem solver may be a new threadless (friction fitting) unit. 

Saddle:

Really ugly, uncomfortable for me, and enormously heavy! It's gotta go. 

Seatpost:

Ugly, too short for many people, and very heavy, especially being steel with the steel clamp. Easy swap out to a modern one 28.6 usually. It's gotta go. 

Chrome steel Handlebars and Stem

Function ok, and have a certain elegance. However, they are really rather heavy and often this is were customisation and your personal vision take over. A quill stem, with alloy riser bars, or bullhorns, etc. 

Hand grips:

Yeuk! Hard ugly plastic and short. The only positive thing I can say about them is that they are hard wearing. But, I really think they have to go in just about any project (save for a restoration to original spec). 

Chrome steel rims:

Work ok, but do not brake as well as alloys, especially in the wet. Look nice when clean and polished up. Heavy! My front wheel without nuts, rim tapes, or tyres weighs 940g. With rim tapes, tyres and nuts it weighs 1547g. Go or stay? It's really one of preference and also considering the condition of the steel rims that you have, the hassle of doing a rim swap, or finding/building another wheel that fits and also brakes that work with them. On the other hand, if you're not accelerating and braking a lot then, a heavy wheel provides a nice flywheel effect for steady riding - which is what I tend to do on a Twenty. 

Nylon bushing top part of the headset: 

Functions just about adequately, especially if you get a chance to clean it and lube the surface that touches the steerer, and adjust the headset properly. Once the light bracket is off, there's not much in the weight. So this one is a matter of preference again. This photo is of my current project, rust cleaned off and polished. I've kept the Nylon bushing, but ditched the light bracket (hence the black spacer):

Another approach is to remove the Nylon bushing and install the top half of a 1" threadless headset. When I do that again in the future, I'll be sure to take enough photos and post them on this blog. 

Frame: 

It wouldn't be a Twenty without one! It's a classic, has got to stay.

Forks:

They are designed to fit the cone flanges of the Raleigh Sturmey Archer front hub and they work well enough. A bit heavy. I think this one is mainly down to whether you keep that front hub or not. Also whether you want to do something funky, like BMX forks for 451 or 406 wheels or suspension forks. In which case, you can also change the whole headset. 

Paintwork:

What condition is it in, and do you like it? Will it clean up nicely (after a wash, T-Cut and car polish)? Simple as that. 

Clamps and Locking levers on steerer and seat tube:

These function adequately if well-maintained and positioned properly (evenly over their respective tubing slots). They add a bit of weight, but also provide easy quick adjustment. Also, if you are fitting a quill stem, the front clamp becomes unnecessary and can go (or stay!). So it's really up to you. 

Brake caliper units:

Can function adequately if you take the time to set them up well, and they polish up ok too. Remove rust with WD40 and 0000 steel wool, chrome polish, lubricate and fix and adjust them properly. Use fresh cables. In many instances, I've changed only the inner wires, as the outer cables were fine. If the ends of the outer cables are kinked, you can snip off 5-10mm cleanly and that will improve the performance quite a bit. Modern alloy units would be an improvement and weigh less, but I think this one is really a matter of preference.  Here's a front caliper, with rust cleaned off one arm, but not yet the other one:

Brake levers:

In my view they function adequately, and being steel are better than plastic levers! But there are lighter and better modern alternatives. So, it's a matter of preference for your particular build I think. 

Mudguards (Fenders):

Functional, but do not have the break-off arms for safety as modern ones do and are relatively heavy. Must mount them properly and securely, or those beefy mounting arms could foul a wheel and cause a bad accident. I'm powder coating mine on this build.  

Chainguard:

Serves a function (keeping your trouser leg clean!) and has a certain appearance. Don't weigh a great deal, but grams are grams. It's up to you! I'm powder coating mine on this build.  

As I've said before, the Raleigh Twenty is like a blank canvas to a bike builder! The Raleigh bronze green BSA 20 that I'm working on at the moment is going to retain most of its original components, but with modern contact points (pedals, saddle/seatpost and hand grips). The next one may be a light weight with funky bars and alloy rims, but I haven't clearly figured out my direction on that one at this time.  

Go with your heart and desire, enjoy the process, and all will be ok. Be creative, be artistic! 

Raleigh Twenty: To powder coat or not?

When I got this bike, it was dirty and grimy looking. My first thought was to strip the paint and get it powder coated. However, after working on it for a while, I realised that the parts with the worst paintwork (chips and rust) were the mudguards (fenders) and the chain guard. These have been removed and sent off to my local powder coaters for prepping and application of a contrasting colour. In the meantime, I washed the frame, applied T Cut to the paintwork, and have been working on polishing up and servicing the components (see last few blog posts on the chainset, bottom bracket and wheels). Today, for the first time, I whacked a bit of regular car polish on the underside of the frame and hey presto:

Not bad for paint that is 33y old, I think you'd agree! It vindicates my decision to not strip this frame. 

Now I'm keen to polish the rest of it, but there's a lot to do before that, such as removing rust from the brake calipers and levers, figuring out what I want for pedals and hand grips. In the photo, you can just see the 1970's cream plastic hand grip. Compared to modern bar grips, these are ugly, uncomfortable and undersized!  

Park Tool Derailleur Hanger Alignment tool DAG 2.2 - Review

Why didn't I buy this earlier?! Yes, it's relatively expensive, but within a year I've used it on 6 bikes and am very happy with the results. Why? Because it improved rear mech changing performance hugely. In some cases, transforming a noisy, crunchy, chain-scruncher to a beautifully efficient "click-whirr"! In my view the tool has easily paid its way already.

I had bought the tool for when the bike may have pranged on something, or fallen on to the drive side, putting the hanger visibly out of alignment. But to my surprise, it's been very helpful for new bikes too. Which tells me that alignment is not always (hardly ever?) checked when a new bike or frame goes out the shop-door to a customer!

The purpose of the thing is to ensure that the rear mech is well-aligned with the sprockets on your back wheel. More precisely, the tool ensures that the plane of the cassette's sprockets is normal to the rear mech fixing bolt hole axis in the derailleur hanger.

If you have trouble adjusting rear mech cable tension to get smooth shifting in both directions, or an otherwise sub-standard rear transmission, just take a quick look at the alignment of your rear mech pulleys and the sprockets. If they are not coplanar, then use this tool to fix it. In the past, I tried realigning by hand, and while it can improve things, the tool allows you to align accurately. Once that alignment is decent, the rear mech can do its thing properly. Suddenly, your transmission works beautifully.

Although it's a simple-looking tool, I can see that a lot of thought has gone into its design. There are various factors to consider in the design of such a tool:

1. Robustness and longevity. The lever needs to be stiff enough, and the attachment to the hanger strong enough. This is because the lever is used to manually bend the hanger. No problem here with the Park Tool. The lever is strong and the rotating bolt is a good tight fit in the heavy housing. Moreover, the threaded end bolt can be removed (it has an allen key socket in it) and replaced. Here's a photo of the main bolt pin removed (need to remove a grub screw):

2. Must fit. Look at a bunch of bikes in a shop, and you'll see a variety of positions of the derailleur hanger bolt hole with respect to rear dropouts, wheel axle, etc. So, the tool has to be able to attach to all these types. I've had no issues with this so far, and I think this is because the part of the tool that houses the bolt is fairly narrow diameter.

3. Ability for the indicator to be moved in and out without losing the setting. The tool has to be used while on the bike (because the hanger is on the bike!). Therefore, the indicator has to be moveable to get around at least, the chain stays and then any other parts hanging about, such as racks, mudguard arms, or even the derailleur itself (if all you've done is unbolted it and let it hang free). The indicator on the tool achieves this with a small knob, and small O-rings to keep the setting as you move it in and out.

Tips and Learnings

1. What I've learned recently, is that even small improvements in hanger alignment can cause big improvements. These kinds of misalignment are not that easy to see with the eye alone, but the tool can detect it. I suppose this is because the indicator looks at the rim positions which is a long distance from the sprockets.

2. I put something on the wheel in the bottom dead centre position, e.g. the tyre valve. Throughout the testing and alignment process, I ensure that the valve remains in that spot.

3. Take off the rear mech. If the hanger is removable, unbolt it and clean it. Grease the bolts and refix it securely before you start the alignment procedure. Sometimes, the issue is not alignment, but rather hanger tightness!

3. CAREFULLY screw the tool into the mech hanger hole - really really really don't want to cross threads here!

4. The procedure I've used that has worked well starts with first using the indicator to look at the top and bottom of the wheel rim to work out which way the hanger is bent in or out from the wheel. (This requires sliding the indicator housing, because the rear mech hole is not in the wheel centre). Then look at the back of the wheel rim and front of the wheel rim (which requires maneuvering the indicator around the chainstay) to figure out which way the hanger is toed in or out from the wheel's plane.

5. Then, spend a few seconds (minutes?!) to visualize how the hanger is aligned with respect to the wheel in your mind BEFORE you bend anything.

6. Make the first bend. So far, I have gone for a horizontal and vertical approach: (1) with the lever horizontal to correct toe-in/out, and (2) with the lever vertical to correct push-in/pull-out. In other words, I get the alignment satisfactory with the lever vertical or horizontal, then get the alignment satisfactory in the other direction (lever horizontal or vertical).

7. I try to minimize the number of bend attempts, because metal fatigues! A couple of mm difference in the indicator positions at the rim doesn't seem to make much impact, so it doesn't seem worth bothering to get mm perfection. Remember that whatever the "gap" is on one side, you only have to bend the hanger half that amount to get it aligned.

8. After correcting both vertically and horizontally, I go back to 4 above and quickly recheck all is good and that the hanger plane is close to parallel to the wheel plane.

9. The knob on the indicator slider and the small O-rings on the indicator work fine. However, I've found that the O-rings will disintegrate over time. I need to get more of them, but at least O rings are easy to find online and cheap.

10. Clean and grease the main bolt pin (see photo above), or perhaps a drop of oil every now and then to keep the bearing smooth. A good idea to keep it easy to screw into the mech hanger hole.

Here's a video from Park Tool of the thing in use.

Park Tool have done a super job with this tool and I recommend it highly. Just get a small bag of replacement O rings.

Electronic Shifting: Di2 Road Bike Build

Finally, I've decided to take the plunge and build myself a road bike with Di2. Why? Three reasons:

• Easier. I acquired a frameset last year which I think will be easier to hook up with electronic shifting rather than cables. Furthermore, I cannot find suitable cable guides for both the drive side chainstay and the BB shell - which looks like this:

• Cheaper. I've worked out that I can do it for a few hundred quid less than it would cost to buy a ready made Di2 bike of equivalent quality. That's partly because Shimano Ultegra 6870 Di2 groupsets can be found for ca. £860 these days. 
• Curiosity! What's the fuss all about? What are they like and how do they perform over time? 

As you can see, none of these reasons are to do with any disillusionment with standard cable operated gears. 

Hopefully, I'll do a better job than the chap who put this bike together:

So, watch this space, as I gather all the bits and undertake the project this summer. 

Giant Defy Mudguards or "Fenders", Review

Giant's hugely popular Defy range of road bikes have mudguard eyelets front and rear. However, clearance under the brake calipers is tight. Giant produce mudguards (finders in English(US)) for the Defy, Avail, Rapid and Dash frames. However, I've heard people, even shop mechanics, say that these don't fit on a Large Defy frame. This post is about my attempt to fit them and I'll give my opinion at the end.  

Those are stainless steel braces that go round the brake caliper area. They are 700c x 35mm. My Large size Defy 4 has 700x25mm tyres. The frame does not have a chainstay bridge, but it does have a hole in the seat tube (behind the bottle mount area) to mount a mudguard. However, the slot in the forward portion of the rear mudguard (at right in the photo above) does not reach this hole. So, the first thing is to test fit it in position, mark the position for a new hole and drill it like this:

Then I put some electrical tape over the slot (no need to allow the muck through!):

That's the only modification required. The whole gubbins then attaches as normal, which is totally straightforward. I decided to use a rubber washer on the inside (made of inner tube) to prevent cracking the plastic as I tightened the bolt and to help with vibration:

From the other side, here is the rubber bung (grommet) that the bolt goes through before tightening into the seat tube hole:

Very sensible design. Here is the rear mudguard all fitted. It's very easy to line up and keep off the tyre:

The front guard posed no issues at all. Here's the bike with the mudguards fitted. I think the "fenders" look quite neat:

All in all, they look and feel like good quality items and there seems to be nothing on them that rusts. They are very low profile and coverage is better than SKS Raceblades. The Giant mudguards seem more sturdy than Crud Road Racer Mark 2's, maintain clearance from the tyres very nicely, and they don't have any brushy things, as on the Crud's, to contact the rims. However, they have traditional wire mounting rods, unlike the Cruds or SKS which have break off parts for safety. They provide a great solution to turn your road bike into a commuter or winter bike. It is possible that they would fit other road bikes too, but you'd need some kind of mod to attach the rear one to the seat tube. Time will tell how long they last, but so far so good. Oh, and in my view, it's not right to say that they don't fit on a Large Defy frame. Sure, one needs to drill a hole in them, but that's easy. Overall, I rate them very highly: 4 Stars out of 5 (would be higher if the arms were the break off type).

Argon 18 E-80 Build Log: Part 2

The finished bike. Fine adjustments (e.g. saddle and tt bar angles) are still to be finalised. I'll do those as I test ride. Those wheels are sheer bling! Supra I think is a rebadged version of FFWD. These are 58mm carbon alloy clinchers, so not the lightest, but reasonably aero.

The cockpit, Profile T2 Wing base bar, Token extensions and Zipp clips n pads. Brake levers are ultra cheap Dia Compe. Why this combo? Well it's what I had - the only part I had to buy is the Zipp clips. The ride is comfortable and smooth. Fairly lively frameset it seems. I'll learn more as I test ride.

I didn't bother changing the left hand gear lever, as it was for a double anyway. So I have a nice black grey thing going on, to match the front and back fork colours. Totally by chance. 

 Basic Tektro brake calipers. They work fine. External cabling, easier maintenance, but less aero. This is a 2009 frame.

 Above you can see the frame clearance for 23mm Michelin Pro 4 Comp tyres. I reckon 24 or 25mm tyres could be accommodated if desired.

 Just love that rear carbon wishbone. Flowing lines. Yes, those are SPD pedals. That's what I use.

Topeak aero rear light, is an easy fit on the Thomson seat post. May as well use that space above the seat tube fairing. 

My old Pro-Lite Bracciano wheels are much lighter than the Supras and may come out on windy days or for hilly TT courses. 

Next some fettling, position honing and test riding. Then on to training... 

Argon 18 E-80 Build Log: Part 1

New project a real TT bike. Here are the first photos:

It's a 2009 frame, interesting because the central trapezium is alloy tubing, but the rear triangle is carbon. So there is a carbon-alloy bond all down the seat tube (like the old Mercury) although it's been tastefully painted over:

Here is a piccie of the old Argon 18 Mercury, showing the carbon-alloy join, for comparison:

The headset is a FSA IS-2 (a standard integrated type). No major news there, except that I'm now wondering whether I've cut the steerer too short. Now that'd be a schoolboy error, if ever I saw one!

Let's see. More to come soon.

Genesis Equilibrium Build Log Part 1: The Frame

Genesis Bikes' Equilibrium frame has earned a great reputation. They struck a happy chord with this one, producing by all accounts a comfortable, rewarding and beautifully finished frameset. I had the good fortune to pick up a new example at a bargain price. My intention is to build it up as a commuter as cheaply as possible. That means using as many of my own bits and bobs that I have lying around. So there's a good chance it will end up a bit weird!

This is nominally a 56cm frame, but the Genesis website specifies seat tube (c-t) 550. It has a relatively short effective top tube of 558, suggesting it will have an upright riding position. Head tube is smallish 150, and the seat post is going to be long, given the sloping geometry of the frame. It's made from Reynolds 725 tubing as shown by the classic seat tube sticker (the description of 725 below is from the Reynolds website):

"HEAT-TREATED CHROME-MOLY STEEL
Using an industry standard alloy with mechanical properties similar to our famous 753 brand, Reynolds mandrel butt and heat-treat this alloy so that thinner walls can be used compared to non-heat-treated steels. 725 can be TIG welded and used within our "Designer Select" combinations including 853 and 631 tubes.
Why it works:
UTS: 1080-1280 MPa, density 7.78gm/cc
Based on a 0.3% carbon steel alloy which has been heat-treated and back-tempered for increased ductility. The chromium content promotes hardenability and resistance to oxidation. The molybdenum works in conjunction with the chrome to stabilize the alloy and maintain strength after heat-treatment and in use."

I believe the forks are carbon with alloy steerer (standard headset required, 1 1/8" size), dropouts and brake bushing. Certainly a magnet does not stick to them as it does to the tubing. DT cable guides already fitted, hmm, but am I going single speed? Mudguard eyes (and a paint scratch):

Neat welding and easy on the eye. Seeing the top tube cable ends - reminds me that I always forget to use frame protector cable grommets. Let's see if I remember this time.

BB shell is standard 68. A very sensibly engineered bridge between the chainstays, should make mudguard fitting much easier:

Quite a lot of dust on the frame - needs a spray of frame saver inside and a good clean outside before I start. Seat tube is 28.6 for front mech (if I'm having one, that is!).  

Below, you can see the straight stays and the geometry. Given the short head tube, I'll probably not cut the steerer, but let's see. 

The rear brake bridge (long drop 57) and seat clamp (29.8). Tseat post is 27.2 diameter - I have one of those in my bits box, but will it be long enough?

Stays are quite thin at the tips and the dropouts seem well made. 

Initially I thought that the kink on the inside of the drive side seat stay (below) was a show room dent, but then I looked closely and it's clear that it is deliberate shaping. Quite obvious that the paint was applied after the shaping. The shop told me that other people had queried it, and they'd already clarified with Genesis that this was a deliberate feature. Presumably it's for chain clearance, but some have commented that it is ugly and unnecessary. 

All in all a lovely frame, and I'm feeling quite excited to build her up, as I said, using what I have "in stock". I will need to buy long reach brake calipers though. After the satisfaction and simplicity of my last single speed build, I'm definitely keen to forget completely about gears... 

Well done Genesis. Can't wait to see your new 953 road racing frame for the Madison-Genesis cycling team, Roger Hammond and Co. He's a cyclocrosser too, so I'll be cheering for them!

Cube Attempt to Cannondale CAAD8 frame swap

Take an Ultegra/105 equipped Cube Attempt:

 and a boxed Sora equipped Cannondale CAAD8:

unbox it:

check it out:

(strip it, not shown) then put the Cube components on to the CAAD8:

Before below; After above:

All the leftover bits will go on to eBay for auction, including the Cube Attempt frameset. This was a unique opportunity to compare quality alloy frames with exactly the same components. They are both cool-looking fabulous bikes. The difference in weight is minor, the CAAD8 being just a few hundred grams or so lighter. The CAAD8 is 6061 alloy with SAVE formed chainstays, while the CUBE is 7005 alloy, hourglass stays and rectangular-ish section chainstays. My comments that follow are merely fine hair splitting. The CAAD8 feels a little nimbler and I find it to be the more comfortable of the two. I reckon it's a tad faster uphill, but on the other hand, the Cube feels more "planted" or "solid" downhill. I don't know if it's merely the "new bike" syndrome, fitness, or whether it is indeed all about the bike, but first time out on the CAAD8, I set a new personal best on a local hilly 35km route by almost a minute and a half. I highly recommend both these bikes. 

Bike frame material: Is steel better than aluminium, carbon, etc?

Which is the best: steel, titanium, aluminium alloy or carbon? For that matter, what about bamboo and wood?!

Such questions have vexed bike designers for many decades. This post is not about the relative merits of each of these materials for bike frames, as there is plenty of information about that already (one of my favourite resources is here). Rather, I give my views on fitness for purpose and ride quality. I used to believe people who said that aluminium gives a harsh ride, until I bought a good alloy road bike, alloy front forks and thoroughly tested them in cyclocross. In my view, in practice, neither were harsh. I used to believe people who said the type of steel tubing really matters, and those who said 531C is the best, until I realised that it is not that simple. In the 1990s 7 steel bikes, identical except for the tubing, were built and blind tested (see this fascinating article). After much riding and reflection, the reviewer commented that the differences between the steel alloy bikes were very subtle - really rather minor. 

There are many ways to create a bike that works well and suits its intended purpose. Factors such as weight, shape, stiffness, tyres and saddle have a huge impact to how a bike works and feels. Ride quality is determined by so much more than frame material. I think there is a good way to look at this. First of all, think of all the things that make a bike efficient. What makes it go further, faster for less work input by you, the engine?! Then list the things that make your life on the bike more comfortable. After doing that, note that some of the comfort enhancing aspects serve to reduce efficiency, but even so, the increase in comfort may be worth it. So here's what I mean:

EFFICIENCY FACTORS

1. Bearings smooth. To put it another way, a jammed wheel would give atrocious "ride quality"!

2. Stiffness. Frame doesn't flex around when you push the cranks, descend at speed or turn

3. Wheels don't wobble, hop, or flop

3. Tyres have low rolling resistance 

4. A decent engine: rider has appropriate fitness and technique (my grandma ain't as efficient as Bradley Wiggins!)

5. Shape and size

6. Fitting is good, proper muscles engaged

7. Clipless pedals

8. Light weight

9. Aerodynamic

10. Components function efficiently 

Some of which work against the following:

COMFORT FACTORS

a. Tyre size and pressure - fatter, softer are more comfy

b. Saddle type

c. Suspension, whether through flexy frame or actual springs/dampers (which also add weight)

d. No nasty resonant effects - from high frequency teeth rattling vibrations, to scary front wheel shimmies

e. Relaxed seating position and rider view point

f. Contact points feel nice, allow subtle body shifts and position adjustments while riding

g. Components are convenient and comfortable to use

I hope you can see where the frame material fits into this. Basically, it contributes to 2, 8, a bit of 9, c and d. But any of the other factors could ruin the rider's experience of what is otherwise a great frame. Thus, all of the materials listed at the start of this article may be used to make a lovely bike frame that functions very well  - but only under particular conditions. Heavier tubing will make a stiffer bike. Both the load lugging touring cyclist and the road racer want a light, stiff bike but suitable frames are not the same in each case. Carbon fibre is great until it gets whacked or even scratched, when a small defect could make it dangerous through risk of catastrophic failure. Bamboo is natural carbon fibre! Modern super-steel alloys like Reynolds 953 undoubtedly make light, comfortable, strong, stiff, corrosion resistant frames, but so can carbon fibre composite, titanium and aluminium alloys. To underline my point, last season, Zdenek Stybar and Ian Field (world and national cyclocross champions) both used aluminium alloy bikes, while many of their world class competitors opted for carbon frames, but I don't know of any champion racers who used a steel frame. 

Ideally, your choice should be a personal one, based on real evidence and your preferences after test riding. After all, you will be riding the bike, not the person who gave their opinion on the frame material!