6061 vs 7005 aluminium

[Aab]

Hej, how would you compare 6061 aluminium with 7005 aluminium frames?
Just remembered how years ago one friend gave compliments to my bike and its 7005 frame. He said it's pretty rare to see such frame.

[Aab]

Since my post I learned that 7005 frames are more difficult to manufacture and probably that is the reason. Overall 7005 is less superior than 6061 aluminium and can feel more rough when riding on such a frame but it is meanwhile stronger, more durable and more expensive.

[IgorCvetkovski]

(09-05-2019, 09:38 AM)Aab Wrote:  Hej, how would you compare 6061 aluminium with 7005 aluminium frames?
Just remembered how years ago one friend gave compliments to my bike and its 7005 frame. He said it's pretty rare to see such frame.

6061 (aluminum/magnesium/silicon alloy) is generally considered superior to 7005 (aluminum/zinc alloy), though in some
respects 7005 can be stronger. The tensile strength of 7005-T6 is 51,000 psi vs 45,000 psi for 6061-T6. Yield strengths are
42,000 psi vs 40,000 psi, respectively. Tensile strength measures the amount stress required to cause complete failure,
while yield strength measures the amount required to deform the material. The problem is that the ratings are measured on
solid aluminum. When to comes to frames, the greatest differences in strength will come from the quality of the welds,
selection of tubing shapes and thicknesses, and the overall design of the frame.
The truth is, in terms of the forces that a bicycle frame is typically subjected to the base material strength differences
between 6061 and 7005 alloys are fairly negligible. You are unlikely to ever put more than a fraction of the stress on your
frame that would cause it to reach those force levels. Nevertheless, the 7005 is the stronger of the two in those respects
(6061 is superior in stretch resistance, but again those figures are far outside of the realm of real world use). So why do I
say that 6061 is considered to be the superior material for making bike frames?
As mentioned by several posters, 6061 is easier to manipulate making butting and tube shaping like ovalizing and tapering
less costly. On the other hand, 6061 requires precise liquid cooling as part of the heat-treatment process that all aluminum
bikes frames must undergo after welding, whereas 7005 can be air cooled. The bottom line was touched upon by an earlier
poster, but is essentially that we can execute a better and lighter design easier with the 6061. Due to the degree of
manipulation, and the liquid quenching, a 6061 frame is typically more expensive to produce. It used to be a considerable
difference just a few years ago,

[ReapThaWhirlwind]

6061 is basically going to be the 'bare bones' quality aluminum.

7005 is stronger, and so would be the higher quality aluminum for bike frames, especially when you consider its crash survivability.

[SPINMAN]

(11-24-2022, 12:22 PM)IgorCvetkovski Wrote:  

(09-05-2019, 09:38 AM)Aab Wrote:  Hej, how would you compare 6061 aluminium with 7005 aluminium frames?
Just remembered how years ago one friend gave compliments to my bike and its 7005 frame. He said it's pretty rare to see such frame.

6061 (aluminum/magnesium/silicon alloy) is generally considered superior to 7005 (aluminum/zinc alloy), though in some
respects 7005 can be stronger. The tensile strength of 7005-T6 is 51,000 psi vs 45,000 psi for 6061-T6. Yield strengths are
42,000 psi vs 40,000 psi, respectively. Tensile strength measures the amount stress required to cause complete failure,
while yield strength measures the amount required to deform the material. The problem is that the ratings are measured on
solid aluminum. When to comes to frames, the greatest differences in strength will come from the quality of the welds,
selection of tubing shapes and thicknesses, and the overall design of the frame.
The truth is, in terms of the forces that a bicycle frame is typically subjected to the base material strength differences
between 6061 and 7005 alloys are fairly negligible. You are unlikely to ever put more than a fraction of the stress on your
frame that would cause it to reach those force levels. Nevertheless, the 7005 is the stronger of the two in those respects
(6061 is superior in stretch resistance, but again those figures are far outside of the realm of real world use). So why do I
say that 6061 is considered to be the superior material for making bike frames?
As mentioned by several posters, 6061 is easier to manipulate making butting and tube shaping like ovalizing and tapering
less costly. On the other hand, 6061 requires precise liquid cooling as part of the heat-treatment process that all aluminum
bikes frames must undergo after welding, whereas 7005 can be air cooled. The bottom line was touched upon by an earlier
poster, but is essentially that we can execute a better and lighter design easier with the 6061. Due to the degree of
manipulation, and the liquid quenching, a 6061 frame is typically more expensive to produce. It used to be a considerable
difference just a few years ago,

As someone said, "it's only as strong as the weakest link," so your point of the quality of the welds is the main point in deciding on aluminum. It seems like the best course is buying a frame from a reputable manufacturer and do your own build. 6061 or 7005 as you pointed out is somewhat negligible aside from comfort, perhaps. Starting my research for a new build now. I'll let you know.

[Balloontire]

(11-23-2022, 04:16 PM)Aab Wrote:  Since my post I learned that 7005 frames are more difficult to manufacture and probably that is the reason. Overall 7005 is less superior than 6061 aluminium and can feel more rough when riding on such a frame but it is meanwhile stronger, more durable and more expensive.

In many ways 7000 series aluminum is superior to 6000 series aluminum. The strength and heat treatment enables very thin walls compared to any 6000 series aluminum frame. A well-made heat treated thin wall 7000 series frame can rival a fine thin wall steel frame for weight and a lively feel. I feel you’ll never achieve with aluminum 6000 series.

[ReapThaWhirlwind]

I've ridden both, but the 7000 series is the one I can say I really put through weathered trials (1995 GT Tempest).

The 7000 series aluminum is more expensive and the staying power properties that it has are incredible. It holds up incredibly well through the harshest riding and conditions, including winter conditions. This is a huge flex for 7000 series aluminum.

The 6000 series frames in my opinion is a little more than a gimmick to create the presentation of a premium product, but in all honestly, is a proof of quality for a bike when you consider all the other grades or alloys of aluminum that the bike could be made it. It's a confidence stamp to know that you will really need to go out of your way to put this bike out of service. That can't be said for just any aluminum.

So in summary, there is a death by degrees between them, and the question you really need to ask yourself is what do you really plan on putting it through? If given the option, know that the 7000 series is the step up from 6000 series. If you want that piece of mind, this is your green flag for that sentiment from me.

[Balloontire]

Totally agree. I got my granddaughter a “vintage” KHS MTB with an Easton 7000 series aluminum frame. The tubes ring like a 1964 Paramount. There are four other 6000 series bikes in the family from the early 2000’s that just feel lifeless to ride. The frame is lighter thanks to the thin walls and heat treating.

[Charles Thomas]

(09-05-2019, 09:38 AM)Aab Wrote:  Hej, how would you compare 6061 aluminium with 7005 aluminium frames?
Just remembered how years ago one friend gave compliments to my bike and its 7005 frame. He said it's pretty rare to see such frame.

Practically there's not much to separate them, a well made 6061 frame will be every bit as good as 7005 and vice versa. 7005 used to be more prevalent on top end alminium bikes until several years ago, but the frame design and build quality are of far more importance than the allot.

[meamoantonio]

I'd like chime in also on the quality of the welds and the geometry or the triangle itself would determine the strength of the frame, but I heard 6061 T6 is not only cost efficient it is also easy to work with

[GirishH]

It’s crazy how much the bike saddle points downward...

(06-21-2026, 04:58 PM)ReapThaWhirlwind Wrote:  I've ridden both, but the 7000 series is the one I can say I really put through weathered trials (1995 GT Tempest).

The 7000 series aluminum is more expensive and the staying power properties that it has are incredible. It holds up incredibly well through the harshest riding and conditions, including winter conditions. This is a huge flex for 7000 series aluminum.

The 6000 series frames in my opinion is a little more than a gimmick to create the presentation of a premium product, but in all honestly, is a proof of quality for a bike when you consider all the other grades or alloys of aluminum that the bike could be made it. It's a confidence stamp to know that you will really need to go out of your way to put this bike out of service. That can't be said for just any aluminum.

So in summary, there is a death by degrees between them, and the question you really need to ask yourself is what do you really plan on putting it through? If given the option, know that the 7000 series is the step up from 6000 series. If you want that piece of mind, this is your green flag for that sentiment from me.

[Mr. Beanz]

I've read 7000 is supposed to be sturdier. Never had a frame of that grade but I had a Lemond Tourmalet that is 6000, same grade as many Trek Alum frames from back around 2005 when I bought mine.

I'm a big rider and the frame was flimsy for me. I learned to avoid standing as I could feel the frame flex and worried about something bad happening. Sure enough, the frame snapped like a coke can on a steep mountain climb.

Felt it pop then the frame started swaying side to side thinking the cranks had snapped. Strange feeling but getting off the inspect it, the frame split from the top of the downtube to the bottom as if someone had ripped a soda can. Thankfully I was on a 10% grad when it happened so i wasn't going very fast, actually not fast at all ha ha ha!