Steel Frame - Lightweight

ROK ON

I have decided that I want a steel frame bike.

Was going to upgrade my commuter, but going to do this instead.
Have seen a lot of the Mercian stuff and like it.
But who else makes bespoke steel frames, that are reasonably light.
Was out for a spint last Thur with another Boardsie who has a steel frame fully built up to come in at 8.5kg. That's sort of what I am looking for.
Bike to be used for general purpose (commuting, training spins etc).

turbine?

The mercian bikes are lovely.

Condor make some nice ones also (Classico and Fratelo are my favourites). The lugs on the mercian vincitore mmmmmm.

16hill16

Rok On
from the back pages of cycling weekly
Not sure how good they are but they do look nice
http://villiers-velo.co.uk/Villiers-Velo/main.htm
http://www.merciancycles.co.uk/index.asp
http://www.atlantic-boulevard.co.uk/index.htm

also google bob jackson
finally this site might give some inspiration

Look at merlin bikes , they look great !
http://www.merlinbike.com/

penexpers

Surly make nice steel frames too. Though it's 4130 chromoly as opposed to Renoylds 853.

Lumen

When I looked into this, a lot of the frame builders have gone to Ti for everything except their budget models.

There is a reason for this.

Why not Ti? Just price?

blorg

You have effectively two choices here:





A guy in our club league has the latter (Master X-Light) and it is a very nice looking bike.

Seriously though, for a commuter I would probably go Bob Jackson if you really want steel and reasonably light. One of the more reasonable price-wise.

Burls is another option although not cheap.

Surly is not usually associated with "light."

Big list here:

http://www.framebuilding.com/custom_uk_bicycle_framebuilders.htm

To a certain extent you are setting yourself up for failure looking for both "steel" and "lightweight", I believe very light steel bikes can be compromised in other areas. Steel is also overpriced (IMHO) for what you get, especially at the higher end. You will have to admit to yourself that really the only reason you want it is for the aesthetics... If you can do this, go mad and I am sure you will love your bike. To be honest generally a steel frame is working against you in the weight stakes, particularly if you also get a steel fork (many racy steel frames are now paired with carbon forks but there is half your aesthetic benefit out the window.)

What are your aims with the bike, e.g. do you want to be able to fit big tyres, rack and mudguards or are you just looking for another racer.

Convict

As with most things there is a premium to be paid for a bespoke frame. There also appear to be two basic styles of bike, those like Jackson and Mercian who make - usually superb - versions of the type of lugged, steel bikes ridden in the 70s and 80s: when steel was king as you might say. Then there are frame makers like
http://www.enigmasteel.com/ and
http://www.brianrourke.co.uk/
who make frames that often use oversize tubing, are tig welded - don't have lugs - and look more modern.
Using modern - top quality - steel tubes, all these bikes are light. As I say, you get what you pay for and a frame maker like Rourke might well suggest that the obsession with frame weight could also be extended to the rider. You are as fast as you are fit.
Rourke is now using Reynolds 953 steel. Top quality, stainless, not always available and expensive. One other consideration is that if you are going the bespoke route you should factor in the price of a journey across the water for a fitting - at that cost level. A bike for life, as they say.. Good luck anyway.

rottenhat

blorg wrote: »

You will have to admit to yourself that really the only reason you want it is for the aesthetics... If you can do this, go mad and I am sure you will love your bike.

Well, it worked for me - not a day goes by that I don't look at my Rivendell and think what a beautiful bike it is. It's also an absolute pleasure to ride.

Before the gram-counters go nuts, I'll just quickly point out that the weight difference between a high-end steel frame and the lightest frames you can buy in any material is at most a kilo and most superlight frames would be a bit noodley for a big rider like you. Admittedly a kilo is a substantial fraction of the weight of a built-up bike but at the same time, if a bike clocks in at 9.5kg instead of 8.5kg, I'd still consider that pretty lightweight.

Surly are a good, honest, workingman's frame - you can kick the crap out of a Steamroller and it'll keep going through thick and thin but Surly and burly aren't just two words that rhyme. Soma Fabrications are pitched at a similar end of the market but I think their frames are a bit more elegant and more nicely finished.

Of the UK builders, Bob Jackson has a very good name - I've known a couple of Bob Jackson owners. Dave Yates and Chas Roberts would also have good reputations among the audax crowd. If you were thinking about going for a UK builder, I'd suggest posting on YACF and seeing what people there have to recommend. Mercian look good, especially if you love that old-school British look, but I don't get the impression they're really considered top-drawer as framebuilders.

If I was going to buy a production steel frame, then that Colnago would be very high up the list...actually, it might constitute the list in toto. I think Waterford still do some nice steel frames too.

If you really want luxury, then I think you have to go to the US builders (or perhaps Rene Herse or Alex Singer in France). You can't even get on the waiting list for Richard Sachs or Vanilla any more, but the likes of Independent Fabrications, Peter Weigle, Dave Kirk, Rivendell, Curt Goodrich....It only makes sense to go this route if it's going to be a bike for life though. To give you an idea of the costs involved, I have a frame on order with Dave Kirk and frame, fork and headset alone will come to $3600. It's a lot of wedge, but it eases the pain slightly if you envision riding the same bike twenty years down the line. With the best will in the world, I think very few people on this forum will still be riding the same bike even five years down the line.

Titanium probably isn't a bad option but I find that ti bikes all tend to look pretty similar. Not that I'd kick a Seven or a Merlin out of bed, you understand, but they don't ignite my passion.

Anyhow, as Blorg says, you need to decide why you really want a steel bike, what you're going to use it for, and how much you want to spend.

rob1891

Maybe you've noticed this already but here is what it takes to get a Master to 7.5kg:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=61364

:eek:

16hill16

Rok On
meant to paste this link into my earlier post
http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/builders.html

Ryder

@rottenhat. Id use you to consider ti aswell. Was in the same boat a couple of months ago-wanted a steel frame for the ride quality but also wanted it to be light, a difficult combination. Anyway tried ti and was sold. Worth considering.

rottenhat

Ryder wrote: »

@rottenhat. Id use you to consider ti aswell. Was in the same boat a couple of months ago-wanted a steel frame for the ride quality but also wanted it to be light, a difficult combination. Anyway tried ti and was sold. Worth considering.

As admitted previously, aesthetics are an important factor for me and lugged steel is head and shoulders above any other construction in that regard as far as I'm concerned, more than enough to outweigh a minor sacrifice in weight...maybe some day I'll give Ti a go but as I say, the look of brushed titanium does nothing for me.

Lumen

What is a decent steel frame like for descending?

In that old vs new article a few weeks ago the 80s steel Pinarello was apparently a bit scary (like knees-gripping-the-toptube scary) on the descents, due to fork flex and general lack of stiffness IIRC.

rottenhat

Lumen wrote: »

What is a decent steel frame like for descending?

Mine's reassuringly stable. Admittedly I'm not a demon descender but I've hit 70+ on roads that could charitably be described as "irish" without having to worry unduly.

I can't reiterate enough that modern steel alloys are considerably different from what was around in the early 80s and that article was a bit of an exercise in shooting fish in a barrel.

ROK ON

Thanks for all of the replies.
I want one purely for the vanity of it.
I envisage that it will be colourful with nice components. Used for FINE DAY commuting, sportives (generally flattish and short course, as opposed to climbing and 160km plus).
I won't fit panniers and mudguards.

I have thought long and hard about Mercian. But I really really like the Colnago frame.

This is to be my bling bike. I don't need it oytrageously light.
My carbon bike is light enough (without even trying). I can get up climbs on my Aluminium bike (9.1k).
I instead of light, I guess that I don't want heavy.
I am going to check all of the websites posted. This is hoping to be my xmas pressie.

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

I have thought long and hard about Mercian. But I really really like the Colnago frame.

Good call. It's dead sexy.

Just don't put Ultegra on it.

Athena?

ROK ON

I really like Ultegra SL - think it looks fab.

But, if I buy an Italian steel frame, it would be crazy not to use an Italian group, saddle, bars, wheels etc. I maybe able to surce a colnago in Italy thru some work contacts. It or a mercian are the default options, but will check the websites first.

rottenhat

Oh, well if we're talking about bling then there is another Italian frame that springs to mind:



The De Rosa Neo Primato...also available in light blue which is equally saucy. Maybe a less obvious choice than Colnago, but that might equal more cred.

Mind you, nothing says bling like chromed stays and forks.