The switch to ally frame trials bikes seems to of been reversed recently with round section tubular steel frames ala gasgas/ossa being the new trend.

Are these latest steel frames lighter than ally or comparable weight but being more compact allow for a neater overall package. (or is it cost against weight saving)

Inquisitive engineer in me asking the question

err...cost?

A beta frame looks like it might cost a few quid to make .

The new gasgas looks likes someone cut the back rack off a raleigh chopper.

(now i know they do look different, but i said it for comedy value only)

discuss.

The switch to ally frame trials bikes seems to of been reversed recently with round section tubular steel frames ala gasgas/ossa being the new trend.

Are these latest steel frames lighter than ally or comparable weight but being more compact allow for a neater overall package. (or is it cost against weight saving)

Inquisitive engineer in me asking the question

Gas Gas / Sherco / Scorpa - I suspect use steel tube so they can produce (Likley in house?) at lowest possible cost

Ossa - more a case of the steel tube design working with the rest of their radical bikes features

Beta - Alloy frame made by subcontractor allows beta to retain the 'feel' to the bike an alloy rigid frame gives.

Nothing wrong with either steel tubes or Alloy - more a case of what you like and what the bike feels like to YOU to ride.

The Beta's design proves Alloy can be compact functional and elegant.

The Ossa design shows just what can be done with a steel / cast alloy combo.

The Gas / sherco / Scorpa are all excellent examples of tubular art excellence !

(A development engineer's thoughts !)

Cheers

GAW

Cheers

GAW

I reckon that all this alu vs steel s a bunch of crud. As far as road bikes are concerned Ducati proved that a steel trellis frame is as a good as an alu frame (fortunatley we're not talking about carbon fibre chassis ). Off road I think it's the same story. My feeling is that Alu frames are all a bit of bling factor.

Watching Gasser and Sherco go from oval and rectangular cross section members respectively to round was driven, I suspect, by costs. If a standard off-the-shelf profile (7/8" chrome moly, been around for yonks) will do the job for less cost then why not use it?

Another factor, IMO, against alu frames is that they wear on high stress points like the bash plate mounting points and work harden. After a few years an alu frame is decided second hand against a steel frame that has experienced similar usage.

I love the style of my Beta but I have rode a newer Gas Gas and it feels lighter, a lot lighter!

I know mine is old but it's my first, can't wait to move up to a newer lighter bike.

My 2 cents

In my opinion , theres no need for an alloy frame.Sure they are well crafted and look nice but... they are more expensive to produce,they dont offer any benefit as they need more bulk and mass to acheive the same strength.

1 - Having an alloy frame is just manufacturers differentiating themselves from the competition. Could you imagine Beta without an Alloy frame - nope.Its just there way of remaining different .If they had a steel frame they could pass the cost saving onto us

2- Steel does the job at a better price and when the bikes a few years old and you want to weld some new footpegs on , or mend a crack , you can doing yourself with a cheap arc or mig welder.

3- The minimum wieght of a trials bike of 66kg is already upon us , so whats to point of an alloy frame anyway?

We should scrap the minimum weight rule,but keep the rules in place banning titanium and carbon handlebars , which would of course assist only the wealthy race teams.

I would like to see the minimum weight increased for 3 main reasons

1) Cut the cost

2) Make bikes stronger / more reliable

3) Heavier bikes would mean sections could be eased and made safer.

I would also ban the use of non weldable (magnesioum alloy?) components

Cheers

I would like to see the minimum weight increased for 3 main reasons

1) Cut the cost

I think if you look at the price of bikes now they are pretty much what they were in real terms (hrs worked) 30 yrs ago.

2) Make bikes stronger / more reliable

Seen any bikes break in two recently (Gasser s/arms by world level riders excepted )? C'mon we've never had it this good. The amount of maintenance the average rider puts into his bike is at an all time low. Modern bikes are as reliable as anvils.

I would also ban the use of non weldable (magnesioum alloy?) components

Cheers

My 1983 Mont 349 had mag alloy side casings so nothing new or fancy there.

I would like to see the minimum weight increased for 3 main reasons

1) Cut the cost

2) Make bikes stronger / more reliable

3) Heavier bikes would mean sections could be eased and made safer.

I would also ban the use of non weldable (magnesioum alloy?) components

Cheers

dadof2 thats a pretty commonsense approach but new bike buyers and factories wont agree

Most peeps want technology to go forward not backwards , whilst keeping bikes reliable.2nd hand bikes are always available for a less costly ride.

Weve all bought bikes on the grounds of them being better and lighter.

If they arent getting lighter there will be LESS of a reason to buy a new bike every year or so.

Manufacturers might struggle with sales as therell be less of a reason to upgrade.

If the FIM weight rule is scrapped , in 10 years well have a 55kg bike .

I love the style of my Beta but I have rode a newer Gas Gas and it feels lighter, a lot lighter!

I know mine is old but it's my first, can't wait to move up to a newer lighter bike.

My 2 cents

A '97 Beta was my first trials bike too. I can assure you a new EVO feels much lighter than your bike too.

Steel vs. Alloy, don't think it really makes a huge diffrance, just style you like. While a steel frame may be easier to repair, I've also seen more cracks and bends in the steel framed bikes.

steel is good at absorbing the vibration from the engine

I would like to see the minimum weight increased for 3 main reasons

1) Cut the cost

2) Make bikes stronger / more reliable

3) Heavier bikes would mean sections could be eased and made safer.

It would also make riding a Trials bike more like riding a motorcycle and increase the versatility of a Trials bike.

[quote name='gasgas249uk'

2- Steel does the job at a better price and when the bikes a few years old and you want to weld some new footpegs on , or mend a crack , you can doing yourself with a cheap arc or mig welder.

You will be quite a good welder in a few years when you are repairing the current thin wall steel tubed frames with a cheap arc welder.

Has any body here dented or crushed an aluminum frame? How about steel?

I think the current superlight steel frames should be considered disposable, needing periodic replacement, like the bicycle frames they resemble.

I think if you look at the price of bikes now they are pretty much what they were in real terms (hrs worked) 30 yrs ago.

Seen any bikes break in two recently (Gasser s/arms by world level riders excepted )? C'mon we've never had it this good. The amount of maintenance the average rider puts into his bike is at an all time low. Modern bikes are as reliable as anvils.

My 1983 Mont 349 had mag alloy side casings so nothing new or fancy there.

I agree.

Jon

ps. My 85 TY350 has Mag sidecases and my 2002 Pro has stock Mag engine and sidecases.

Having owned and enjoyed many bikes with both types of frame construction I have noticed the compactness of the steel frame makes maintenence,servicing,and general access to most components of the machine much easier. All the new bikes offer amazing capability for the money , as well as being quite reliable for many seasons of fun !

I would be in favor of lowering the minimum weight rules to allow the continued improvement of the bikes ,as well as allowing the sport to progress into the future. Limiting some component materials could make cost sense as mentioned earlier in the post.

Edited November 2, 201114 yr by camberman