The 'Myth' of Old Steel Frames .

2011abc

While I appreciate the heritage and beauty of these anybody who's tempted to buy one as a more comfortable ,faster,lighter alternative to a half decent training bike like a Trek 1200 is crazy in my opinion .Durability ,hmmm,well other folk might have a more expert opinion on that .Did aluminium frames ever actually start self destructing after 2-5 years as was predicted years ago ?Are aluminium frames FAR more vulnerable in a crash?Carbon?Is Titanium overhyped too?I reckon an aluminium frame with carbon fork(and stays?) or a full carbon if on a higher budget is a far,far better buy .
Of course as long as the 'snobbery' surrounds old italian steel they will always have one thing going for them -resale value!
Im not even sure that my 2010 training bike (1200 ish) isnt faster than my 3-3.5k 2004 full carbon with Dura Ace (and THAT was lighter/faster than a 753 TRACK bike ) !!!

happytramp

It's all subjective. If you take two riders of equal ability, one on an Italian steel frame, one on a carbon frame, factor in their weight, their bike's weight, their power output and Vo2 Max..... one will look far cooler than the other.

ford2600

My trek aluminium frame failed after 6 years use and no abuse.

If it was steel I could have got local welder to repair it...

A lot of the high end expedition bikes use steel

2011abc wrote: »

While I appreciate the heritage and beauty of these anybody who's tempted to buy one as a more comfortable ,faster,lighter alternative to a half decent training bike like a Trek 1200 is crazy in my opinion .Durability ,hmmm,well other folk might have a more expert opinion on that .Did aluminium frames ever actually start self destructing after 2-5 years as was predicted years ago ?Are aluminium frames FAR more vulnerable in a crash?Carbon?Is Titanium overhyped too?I reckon an aluminium frame with carbon fork(and stays?) or a full carbon if on a higher budget is a far,far better buy .
Of course as long as the 'snobbery' surrounds old italian steel they will always have one thing going for them -resale value!
Im not even sure that my 2010 training bike (1200 ish) isnt faster than my 3-3.5k 2004 full carbon with Dura Ace (and THAT was lighter/faster than a 753 TRACK bike ) !!!

2011abc

ford2600 wrote: »

My trek aluminium frame failed after 6 years use and no abuse.

Frame cracked ?Where?Any imminent danger or 'just' a small crack?

Surveyor11

Same here, cracked aluminum frame on a Giant SCR, few others as well when I posted a while back. Cracked at the seat post / top tube connection. No way I was going to cycle that.

In fairness, cycling on any cracked on any frame you're asking for it.

ford2600

80% of the circumference of seat tube just above bottom bracket.

Imminent enough for you?

2011abc wrote: »

Frame cracked ?Where?Any imminent danger or 'just' a small crack?

Harrybelafonte

Have come across a good few cracked alu frames and a titanium lately too. A CAAD4 Saeco broke my heart. Cracked at the chainstays on both sides. Horrible big weld in them now.

funkyjebus

My alu Felt cracked after 4 years, on the top of the top tube just before the seat tube weld, went all the way down and around to the seat stays. I have 2 steel frames, one from 1968 and one from the early 80's, still going strong.

I like my carbon bike the best.

im invisible

don't you just hate when people quote posts like this?

ford2600 wrote: »

80% of the circumference of seat tube just above bottom bracket.

Imminent enough for you?

thebouldwhacker

Op I'm not sure I get the point, are you venting about steel as a material for bike manufacture or are you saying that those who appreciate steel bikes are a bunch of langers?

ednwireland

steels rubbish


second one i've broken in 25 years

feck sake lads

the inside of that break looks rusty to me which could be the cause of it breaking.:eek:

Ole Rodrigo

Surely theres not much difference, with low and high quality grades for each material ?

jjcahill78

I like steel bikes because they are a bit different. When you turn up to sportives there are only a handful of makes on display and its nice to have something classy, stylish and not the same as everyone else. All the guys I cycle with are leisure cyclists, we are liable to swet more than the weight difference between a decent steel bike and an aluminium bike over 100km. It really is a subjective style thing more so than a performance thing.

happytramp

ednwireland wrote: »

steels rubbish


second one i've broken in 25 years

You're using it wrong.

happytramp

In the trial of Steel vs Carbon allow me, in defence of the accused (Steel), to cite the case of Pink Pinerello vs Pink Pinerello.

Notice the similarities. Same colour frame. Same colour bar tapes and saddles, yet very different machines. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I'll let you decide.

Exibit A



Exibit B

CramCycle

2011abc wrote: »

While I appreciate the heritage and beauty of these anybody who's tempted to buy one as a more comfortable ,faster,lighter alternative to a half decent training bike like a Trek 1200 is crazy in my opinion .

Why?

Durability ,hmmm,well other folk might have a more expert opinion on that .Did aluminium frames ever actually start self destructing after 2-5 years as was predicted years ago ?

Some did, mine did at 6 years old, but steel ones are as likely to rust. I just don't think a steel failure will be as sudden or at all if looked after properly and it is welded properly.

Are aluminium frames FAR more vulnerable in a crash?

I doubt it but only opinion steel will bend,/ding, aluminium might ding or crumple, carbon will spontaneously combust although its getting more and more robust.

Is Titanium overhyped too?

Probably the one that will outlast them all but its not used much due to cost and too early designs either being too thin, too thick, absorbs alot of the effort in a sudden burst but that is also changing.

I reckon an aluminium frame with carbon fork(and stays?) or a full carbon if on a higher budget is a far,far better buy .

It really depends what you want too do with it, whats your opinion of better? Distance ridden in comfort? value for money?What makes a bike for you and that will answer your question for you.
It all depends on circumstances, and choice. I was at the front of the last race of the club league with 1 km to go on a steel bike, finished in the top 15, I don't think there was any huge difference given due to the bike, I would be an average rider, just a good day.

Of course as long as the 'snobbery' surrounds old italian steel they will always have one thing going for them -resale value!

I got a lovely Tiawan steel bike 2 years ago now, wouldn't swap it for one of those hipster things

Im not even sure that my 2010 training bike (1200 ish) isnt faster than my 3-3.5k 2004 full carbon with Dura Ace (and THAT was lighter/faster than a 753 TRACK bike ) !!!

nowadays the difference between the high end and mid range is minimal (prepares to be shot), Tiagra nowadays is better than 105 two years ago, 105 nowadays is as good as ultegra a few years old, its all catching. There will always be a difference, its just not as much as it used to be.

2011abc

CramCycle wrote: »

Why?(Mid range modern bike better than 'pedigree' steel 'racing bike'

Because when ridden it is lighter,faster and more comfortable ...

2011abc

happytramp wrote: »

In the trial of Steel vs Carbon allow me, in defence of the accused (Steel), to cite the case of Pink Pinerello vs Pink Pinerello.

Notice the similarities. Same colour frame. Same colour bar tapes and saddles, yet very different machines. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I'll let you decide.

Exibit A



Exibit B

The steel one might have won if it had original (any!?) frame transfers and a more appropriate or even matching groupset!I HAD a Pinarello Montello SLX back in the day !Ive no doubt a 500 euro bike today would be faster ,lighter and probably more comfortable.In its day it WAS rigid and comfortable .But to compare the two pink bikes and suggest theres any chance of them competing equally is like comparing a Mk1 Golf GTi with a new one ...

colm_gti

It's still about 37 minutes til Friday lads....

victorcarrera

I don't think you can compare them based on the material used because there are far too many variations in the grade of tube used within each type of material, its thickness, cross section, circumference and geometry.
Metal frames that break at or near joints could be due to overheating or poor workmanship during manufacture.
There is no way to compare the different reports of broken frames above because some don't know the history of the frame or it may have been left out in the elements or taken just one catastrophic hit. Then some people are more severe on frames and wheels because of their weight and riding style.
Carbon may have overtaken the metals initially because of its weight and possibly price and location of manufacture but metal technology has not stood still either and from what I have read, pound for pound high quality steel is still the strongest. It is just that the price of manufacturing the tube and the expertise required to make the frame is prohibitive.

2011abc

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Op I'm not sure I get the point, are you venting about steel as a material for bike manufacture or are you saying that those who appreciate steel bikes are a bunch of langers?

I just feel a lot of noobs or born again cyclists in the market for a fast bike are misled into thinking something old and steel will be almost as 'fast' and more 'comfortable' on a long ride .The latter is one of the complete mistruths of this myth / cult of 'steel'.Id LOVE to have the money and room to have loads of bikes but if you can only have 1 or 2 a steelie should not be amongst them in my opinion .Each to their own .Im certainly not calling anybody a langer but if you think yer Colnago Mexico/Master Olympic Piu is gonna cut the mustard on your club spin when the hammer goes down up some hill youd best be a horse and a half!Now if you WANT a heavy bike to train on ,work away....

colm_gti

2011abc wrote: »

but if you think yer Colnago Mexico/Master Olympic Piu is gonna cut the mustard on your club spin when the hammer goes down up some hill youd best be a horse and a half

What bike would you recommend if I want to get faster up hills?

2011abc

Born again cyclist so not that knowledgeable on very latest tech but Id imagine a sub 1kg carbon fibre frame with Dura Ace / SRAM Red groupset and light wheeels /tyres kinda thing!?Significant savings can be made on finishing kit weight too if ya get anal and dont mind forking out (Is weightweenies website still going?)Wouldnt go far wrong with the latest GIANT carbon fibre flag ship frame .But of course unless youre at almost anorexic weight levels its usually easier-certainly on wallet- to shed a few pounds body fat!

Raam

I'd like to get a good steel or titanium frame built up at some point as a long distance touring bike. Possibly an Enigma if I go titanium. For steel, I've always admired Tomassini. My singlespeed is steel and I love it. It has a nice ride quality for tootling around on.

My alu road bike is a bit harsh but it's so comfortable in other ways that I just really love to ride it. Kinda like an old shoe I suppose. I'm used to it and I know it well but it ain't pretty to look at though. It's been raced a fair bit and has been in the wars and seen plenty of abuse, but it's still going strong in it's seventh year.

I have two CF road bikes and they are just an absolute dream to ride. Way better than the others in terms of ride quality and just the joy that I get out of riding them as fast as I can. They win hands down from that point of view.

My MTB is an alu frame. I've never ridden a CF one so I can't compare. My old MTBs were steel but it's so long since I've ridden them that I cannot remember what they are like.

Lastly, the two CX bikes which I have had are alu cos I didn't feel like splashing out on a CF frame at the time. I wish had gone the CF route though.

Leroy42

So Raam, basically you love all your bikes depending on your mood/need.

methinks your post was really just so you could tell us all how many wonderful bikes you have ;-)

CramCycle

2011abc wrote: »

Because when ridden it is lighter,faster and more comfortable ...

It really does depend, if your strapped for cash, alu is lighter. Faster is a training thing but I'll concede that if your minted, you'll find a bike of any material that is more suited to making an individual cyclist faster. Comfort, again bike fit, design etc. My steel is more comfy than my aluminium, I am also faster and it is lighter but I had a bike fit and I spent more money on it.

2011abc wrote: »

I just feel a lot of noobs or born again cyclists in the market for a fast bike are misled into thinking something old and steel will be almost as 'fast' and more 'comfortable' on a long ride .The latter is one of the complete mistruths of this myth / cult of 'steel'.

For carbon definitely, it is getting more and more comfortable, I notice the difference but I have no idea which is more comfortable physically, on a 600km psychologically, the idea that it is generally repairable enough to get you home in most situations can mean alot.

Id LOVE to have the money and room to have loads of bikes but if you can only have 1 or 2 a steelie should not be amongst them in my opinion

I don't get why not, do you mean if your a racer? your first post hints at training only, in what situations.

Each to their own .Im certainly not calling anybody a langer but if you think yer Colnago Mexico/Master Olympic Piu Charge Juicer is gonna cut the mustard on your club spin when the hammer goes down up some hill youd best be a horse and a half!Now if you WANT a heavy bike to train on ,work away....

I am the weakest cyclist in the club racing group, I only get dropped on the flats, on the uphill I always hold my own with one exception last year but I blame the diabetes for that.

colm_gti wrote: »

What bike would you recommend if I want to get faster up hills?

Colm if you get faster at any part of a race, we may as well just give you first place and save money / time by cancelling the league.

Raam

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Raam, basically you love all your bikes depending on your mood/need.

methinks your post was really just so you could tell us all how many wonderful bikes you have ;-)

All of your post is true

Harrybelafonte

This is one of the most negative threads started in this forum. OP reminds me of that guy/girl in lectures who'd ask a nonsensical question which was really a thinly veiled attempt to show us all how knowledgeable they were.

rollingscone

Me want surly bike for....looooooove

...and cycling.

piston

Performance has a lot more to do with the rider than the bike. I doubt anyone here is riding at a pro level so if you can't keep up on a steel bike, the problem is more likely to be you, not the bike.

There is no way I would bin any of my steel frames.

colm_gti

rollingscone wrote: »

Me want surly bike for....looooooove

...and cycling.

x2, I'd like a surly pacer or charge juicer....

Wibbs

2011abc wrote: »

The steel one might have won if it had original (any!?) frame transfers and a more appropriate or even matching groupset!

The notion of the matching groupset being paramount is recent enough. Back in the day when you could mix and match manufacturers bikes regularly came from the factory with a mix of components.

I HAD a Pinarello Montello SLX back in the day !Ive no doubt a 500 euro bike today would be faster ,lighter and probably more comfortable.

Well a few years ago a mate bought a Al bike with CF fork and low end Shimano groupset for 800 quid and my early 80's Sl steel bike was lighter by nearly a kilo. It was well ahead of it in comfort and downhill stability.

Each material has it's pros and cons. Today's steel(development hasn't stayed still since the 80's) is quite the nice material. The stainless varieties are rust free and you can build up a bike that breaks the UCI weight limit, so for racing in official races it's gonna be as light as the CF. Steel is expensive however. Older steels are heavier than CF, but still if you got a mid sized Columbus SL/SLX or a Reynolds 753 fitted up with modern weight weenie kit, the difference is gonna be small enough(about a kilo). Certainly small enough for the vast majority of cyclists and "hobby" racers.

CF is a great material. It's the most customisable and is now cheap and easier to make than a top end steel(or Ti or Al). Failures are not the issue some make it out to be. That said steel wins that one. If it fails it tends to fail progressively. Nature of the material. Fatigue strength is also a win for steel and Ti. It doesn't have a fatigue limit like Al, hence you don't find springs made with Al. Tensile strength is higher for CF, but tensile strength isn't the be all and end all. After all glass has a higher tensile strength than steel, but wouldn't be much cop as a bike frame.

CF is also the most easily repaired material, not steel(contrary to popular). Yes you can repair a steel(and Ti) frame, but it's expensive, requires swapping out tubes, rebuilding stays etc and requires an expert hand to do it. EG try finding someone in Ireland who could do it well. Al is very difficult to repair. Far better to bin the frame.

Longevity? Ti likely wins this round as a "lifetime bike". Steel coming second. Al no because of it's material limit and I suspect CF has similar. It's affected by UV and if old CF fly fishing rods are anything to go by it'll get sloppier with use.

Style? The thinner tube steel likely wins this one but that's down to personal taste too. Personally, while I love the notion of CF framed bikes I find many of them to be aesthetically muddled and that's putting it kindly. Never mind the colour schemes(usually some mix of blue, red, white), some of the frames with fat main tubes and anorexic seat stays look very odd to my eye. Like someone chopped up a few bikes jumbled up the results and glued it back together.

piston wrote:

Performance has a lot more to do with the rider than the bike.

+1000. As I noted before elsewhere our own Sean Kelly regularly hammered the field riding early AL frame bikes that weren't much lighter than the steels and had the rigidity of an over ripe banana.

petethedrummer

Looking back on my bikes as a kid I have fonder memories of the steel ones than the Alu ones. I had a 2nd hand steel Sprick road bike and a new steel Sprick MTB, both of which I loved and preferred riding than all my friends' Alu Bikes or any of the Alu bikes I later required. They just felt better.

I have a feeling that the MTB had very well constructed wheels with very good bearings and that may have been the reason rather than the actual frame material. They rolled forever.

happytramp

2011abc wrote: »

if you think yer Colnago Mexico/Master Olympic Piu is gonna cut the mustard on your club spin when the hammer goes down up some hill youd best be a horse and a half!

I'm almost inclined to think this is a joke. Do you actually think an 'okay' cyclist on a Carbon bike would beat a 'good' cyclist on steel bike? Ever? Even once? That is mental.

Lumen

How much does a light steel race frame cost?

What CF options are there at the same price?

From a manufacturer that does both...

€900, 1800g, steel
http://www.condorcycles.com/Condor-Bikes/9451-Condor-Acciaio-Frameset/flypage.tpl.html

€1100, 1100g, CF
http://www.condorcycles.com/Condor-Bikes/9468-Condor-Squadra-Frameset/flypage.tpl.html

€3300, 1450g, steel
http://www.condorcycles.com/Road/12040-Condor-Acciaio-Stainless-Frameset/flypage.tpl.html

Now I assume those are all frame weights, not frameset weights, but at face value by choosing steel you can either save €200 and gain 700g or spend €2200 more and gain 350g.

Not a compelling choice, given that a an attractive sub-kilo CF frame can be had for around €1000 (e.g. Planet X N2A 2 €1045, 987g in large size).

colm_gti

Lumen wrote: »

Not a compelling choice, given that a an attractive sub-kilo CF frame can be had for around €1000 (e.g. Planet X N2A 2 €1045, 987g in large size).

Have read on a few occasions that Planet X slightly exaggerate their frame weights, with weight weenies being a little disappointed. That's not to say they aren't still very light though.

dave2pvd

Wibbs wrote: »

The notion of the matching groupset being paramount is recent enough. Back in the day when you could mix and match manufacturers bikes regularly came from the factory with a mix of components.

Well a few years ago a mate bought a Al bike with CF fork and low end Shimano groupset for 800 quid and my early 80's Sl steel bike was lighter by nearly a kilo. It was well ahead of it in comfort and downhill stability.

Each material has it's pros and cons. Today's steel(development hasn't stayed still since the 80's) is quite the nice material. The stainless varieties are rust free and you can build up a bike that breaks the UCI weight limit, so for racing in official races it's gonna be as light as the CF. Steel is expensive however. Older steels are heavier than CF, but still if you got a mid sized Columbus SL/SLX or a Reynolds 753 fitted up with modern weight weenie kit, the difference is gonna be small enough(about a kilo). Certainly small enough for the vast majority of cyclists and "hobby" racers.

CF is a great material. It's the most customisable and is now cheap and easier to make than a top end steel(or Ti or Al). Failures are not the issue some make it out to be. That said steel wins that one. If it fails it tends to fail progressively. Nature of the material. Fatigue strength is also a win for steel and Ti. It doesn't have a fatigue limit like Al, hence you don't find springs made with Al. Tensile strength is higher for CF, but tensile strength isn't the be all and end all. After all glass has a higher tensile strength than steel, but wouldn't be much cop as a bike frame.

CF is also the most easily repaired material, not steel(contrary to popular). Yes you can repair a steel(and Ti) frame, but it's expensive, requires swapping out tubes, rebuilding stays etc and requires an expert hand to do it. EG try finding someone in Ireland who could do it well. Al is very difficult to repair. Far better to bin the frame.

Longevity? Ti likely wins this round as a "lifetime bike". Steel coming second. Al no because of it's material limit and I suspect CF has similar. It's affected by UV and if old CF fly fishing rods are anything to go by it'll get sloppier with use.

Style? The thinner tube steel likely wins this one but that's down to personal taste too. Personally, while I love the notion of CF framed bikes I find many of them to be aesthetically muddled and that's putting it kindly. Never mind the colour schemes(usually some mix of blue, red, white), some of the frames with fat main tubes and anorexic seat stays look very odd to my eye. Like someone chopped up a few bikes jumbled up the results and glued it back together.

+1000. As I noted before elsewhere our own Sean Kelly regularly hammered the field riding early AL frame bikes that weren't much lighter than the steels and had the rigidity of an over ripe banana.

Great post Wibbs.

I'll say this though: regarding longevity, CF and aluminum (sorry!) can perform just fine. CF has no UV issues if it's painted (properly). Designed right, neither CF nor aluminum ever need to approach the end of their fatigue life. So, it's likely that neither will end up doing a 'Comet' and failing around its window openings. Or something.

Of course, the production process can have massive effects on the properties of a CF frame, esp partial or full monocoques - those damn humans are such a variable! Relatively small layup technique differences can cause all sorts of differences to what kind of stress resistance the product has. I have to wonder if this is what happened to all those Specialized steerer tubes that are being recalled? So, CF frames are not exactly homogenous. Some may have better longevity than others. Despite being same make/model. A bit like Italian cars from the 80s.

Lumen

colm_gti wrote: »

Have read on a few occasions that Planet X slightly exaggerate their frame weights, with weight weenies being a little disappointed. That's not to say they aren't still very light though.

I got the PX weight from weightweenies :-)

2011abc

happytramp wrote: »

I'm almost inclined to think this is a joke. Do you actually think an 'okay' cyclist on a Carbon bike would beat a 'good' cyclist on steel bike? Ever? Even once? That is mental.

No , but half a stone of extra (bike) weight along with other relative weaknesses in rigidity/functionality etc is gonna separate 'similar' cyclists big time !

colm_gti

2011abc wrote: »

No , but half a stone of extra (bike) weight along with other relative weaknesses in rigidity/functionality etc is gonna separate 'similar' cyclists big time !

I'm willing to test this theory if ye are willing to provide suitable test bikes...:D

Would be an interesting experiment...borrow a mates powertap rear wheel...pick a hill, lets say three rock, from the pub to the mast, settle on a suitable output that can be maintained from bottom to top, then do the same on a steel, alu and carbon bike with similar spec apart from frames, keeping the above constant power, and compare the times between the three.

I doubt there'd be more than a 2-3% difference in the times....?

FirstinLastout

Have not tried CF road frame but my alloy frame, while perfectly functional, does seem somewhat "dead" or "dull" as regards the steel bikes I have. It was the first alloy bike I'd every been on and it was the first impression that it made upon me.

Anyroad, somewhat slightly related....

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/243228/

Civilian_Target

Aluminium's nice, but I much prefer a steel frame for around town. Soaks up the holes better, and at this time of year, and it's less affected by the salt on the road. (Looks better too!)

Lumen

colm_gti wrote: »

I'm willing to test this theory if ye are willing to provide suitable test bikes...:D

Would be an interesting experiment...borrow a mates powertap rear wheel...pick a hill, lets say three rock, from the pub to the mast, settle on a suitable output that can be maintained from bottom to top, then do the same on a steel, alu and carbon bike with similar spec apart from frames, keeping the above constant power, and compare the times between the three.

I doubt there'd be more than a 2-3% difference in the times....?

Ryaner did this test a couple of years back and found a surprisingly significant difference. This was referenced here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61147892&postcount=1

..which links to the magazine test here:

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf

letape

2011abc wrote: »

No , but half a stone of extra (bike) weight along with other relative weaknesses in rigidity/functionality etc is gonna separate 'similar' cyclists big time !

Yeah i think this must definitely be a joke! Half a stone is 7 pounds or nearly 3.5kg.... I have a Colnago master and a Scott addict. The Scott weights 6.5kg and the difference in weight is no more that 2 kg.

Wibbs

Lumen wrote: »

Now I assume those are all frame weights, not frameset weights, but at face value by choosing steel you can either save €200 and gain 700g or spend €2200 more and gain 350g.

Yes but we're talking in the latter case a difference of 10 ounces in old money. Better known as "Eff all". A full water bottle on the same bike would be 33 ounces in old money. Most of all this difference to the vast majority of riders reading this would be beyond negligible.

Lumen wrote: »

Ryaner did this test a couple of years back and found a surprisingly significant difference. This was referenced here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61147892&postcount=1

..which links to the magazine test here:

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf

Great for filling a magazine page or screen, but IMHO a bad comparison for materials. Very. 1) the frame material in these two examples would be right down the list as far as efficiency is concerned. 2) The early 80's Pinarello with all original equipment is going to have an original 80's wheelset under it, which is going to be where weight really counts. Rolling weight is the killer. 3) it's gonna be running 80's gears with non indexed shifters on the down tube and 80's(ohmigodI'mgonnadie!) brakes. For a start that's going to negatively impact the subjective results in riders used to modern components. In a big way. They're gonna take downhills slower, and every time they select a gear there's gonna be a delay and they'd have far fewer gear ratios and large gaps in same.

Yet even after all that the difference at the end was just barely over half a kilometer per hour?
. And that's on a climb where the weight weenie stuff is supposed to really separate the materials? Ehhhh? No sale. For me anyway.

Your man reckoning the speed increases in racing is 60% down to equipment, should have an oul look at his own tests cos I ain't seeing near 60%. Must be the dope captain

A better test of the materials IMH would be if they took an Al frame a CF frame and a modern steel job from Pegoretti/Zullo/etc with the oversized rear stays and all that(I've pedaled a Peg and it was about the stiffest rear triangle bike I've ever sat on. Shoulda been sponsored by Viagra) and put the exact same components on it, wheels groupset etc. I would put money down the objective tests would be incredibly close if not too close to call(there may even be surprises) and the subjective tests would be as much down to the individuals choices and indeed feelings on a material.

2011abc

letape wrote: »

Yeah i think this must definitely be a joke! Half a stone is 7 pounds or nearly 3.5kg.... I have a Colnago master and a Scott addict. The Scott weights 6.5kg and the difference in weight is no more that 2 kg.

No its most definitely NOT a joke -ok so maybe the difference between an 'old' bike and a 'new' one mightnt be QUITE 7 pounds but it could certainly be 4-6 EASILY!Anyway ,just read the article linked above -says it all really .

Wibbs

2011abc wrote: »

No its most definitely NOT a joke -ok so maybe the difference between an 'old' bike and a 'new' one mightnt be QUITE 7 pounds but it could certainly be 4-6 EASILY!Anyway ,just read the article linked above -says it all really .

A good CF frame and a good steel frame are going to be around a kilo apart in weight. 2 pounds. Running the same components this means the completed steel bike is going to be 2 pounds heavier. End of. Unless a material magically gains or loses weight because of the gear you put on it. Plus you can get steel framed bikes whoe all up weight including pedals and bottle cage BTW are under the UCI weight limit. So at that point the weight debate is kinda moot for pro racers anyway.

Plus letape points out he has these two bikes himself and knows their weights.

2011abc

The two bikes compared in the article an '83 steel Pinarello and 2009 Lapierre CF differ in weight by 2.5kg.The article (from Procycling) overwhelmingly concludes that there is no comparison between the bikes of the two eras.Even a guy who owns a bike shop in London specialising in 'old steel' agrees theres no comparison .Bike couriers ,fixed gear commuters and born again racers may have made steel cool again .People should just be aware of the differences before paying over the odds for a 'steelie' especially if they want to 'perform' alongside more modernly equipped riders.

Lumen

Wibbs wrote: »

Great for filling a magazine page or screen, but IMHO a bad comparison for materials.

Yes, but that magazine was testing complete bikes, and this thread started out about "Old Steel Frames". Are you suggesting that people should take an "old steel frame" and stick 11sp Campag and G3-spoked modern Campag wheels on it? Also, front wheel control was criticized due to the fork, and I don't know whether it's possible to stick a modern CF fork on an "old steel frame" even if it were aesthetically acceptable.

As far as modern steel frames are concerned, the earlier comparison I posted about frame weights and prices is more relevant.

I honestly don't have any pro-carbon bias - I've sold or crashed all my carbon frames and I now ride various steel, alu and titanium bikes.

But I do think that as a material for racing bikes, steel is now a tough sell because the frames are some combination of expensive and/or heavy. I wouldn't choose Ti either, for that matter, for much the same reasons.

Racing bikes used for racing should be cheap or light or both.

vigorelli

As a BEng (Hons) and a racing cyclist, all four mainstream bike frame materials have their advantages and disadvantages, and the former are usually overstated by aficionados and the latter overstated by the detractors.

If you want light weight and stiffness at a good price, then it's hard to beat CF. It can be made in all sorts of shapes, to make it stiffer in certain areas, more aero or to hide batteries. If treated well it can outlast metal.

However, it is notch sensitive and its failure mode is catastrophic. It is really easy to write off a carbon frame or components in a crash or through other accidental damage or misuse. Carbon may be good value but not if you have to replace it soon after you bought it. This doesn't happen in most cases so it doesn't matter to most people, but there are many cases of expensive bikes being written off long before the loan to buy them is paid off.

The high price of steel frames is in large part down to the labour costs. It's hard to find a very high quality steel frame, made at low labour cost in the far east.

Most people who choose steel aren't choosing based on weight or stiffness versus cost. They're doing so for other reasons, such as sentimentality, durability, repair-ability, perceived comfort, and they believe they won't lose too much in terms of weight or stiffness or aero.

Is it possible to race on steel?

This tommasini steel weighs 7.19kg and I would happily race it
http://vimeo.com/35886806

The Madison Genesis team managed by Roger Hammond will all be racing on steel bikes this season. Interestingly, in their development work with reynolds, they are less concerned with the weight penalty and have been working on increasing stiffness through the selective reshaping of certain tubes.
http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/team

I have also heard that two member of the Rapha Condor team chose to ride on steel Condor Acciaios last season.

Will there be anyone racing A3 on a sub 8kg steel bike this year? Maybe