Polo Bikes

This one: http://www.maxpowercycles.de/wp-content/gallery/various-bikes/425717_511727122195378_544448387_n.jpg

That's the one with the old chainstays and dropouts. New one is like this:

http://www.maxpowercycles.de/wp-content/gallery/700c/700c_geo.jpg

Seat tube length is C-C, C-T is 645mm. Wheelbase is 995mm. head tube length is 195mm.

Seems pretty ideal. maybe I should start saving :D

Measured the Charge...(approx)
st cc (ct) 590mm (630mm)
tt cc 565mm horizontal (really short)
ht 170mm
wb 1000mm
chainstay length 405mm
hta* 73

Versus the Max Power:
st cc (ct) 595mm (645mm)
tt cc 605mm effective
ht 195mm
wb 995mm
chainstay length 395mm
hta 74.5*

Obviously the Max Power is a better bike, but by how much?

The toptube is longer and the headtube is longer and more aggressive. The chainstays are shorter and so is the wheelbase. Snoops pointed out I am very upright on the Charge, and when powering down, my front end bounces around. I agree that more weight over the front should be a good thing, but going from 565mm horizontal toptube to a 605mm effective seems really extreme!

The other thing is weight. The Charge as pictured above weighs 12.18kg! (lol)

Max says:

Frame material is a question of belief in the end. What I can say from the technical point of view is this: at the same weight, an aluminium frame of equal quality is stronger than a steel frame. Alu=weak and steel=strong is basically bullshit. It should be: light=weak and heavy=strong. You can use steel to build bikes that are too light for polo, and you can build heavy aluminium bikes. I try to find a way to make bikes at a reasonable weight that are still strong enough. And in my opinion the best material for this is aluminium.

Thoughts?