Vintage Steel vs Lightweight Carbon - A question of aesthetics

happytramp

I realise most of us here either an Aluminium or Carbon framed bike but many also own or have owned an old steel road bike at some stage. Just wondering whether people prefer the look of the classic lines and minimalism of vintage steel or the visceral stealthiness of modern carbon. For the sake of pictorial reference I've included two quality builders who have been around a long time and some handsome groupsets

Merckx





Wilier





Groupo's

Sinbad_NI

Modern carbon for me.

DirkVoodoo

Vintage Steel

Should the bikes not have the same groupsets and wheels? I think steel bikes look pretty good with modern components, I don't like down-tube shifters and big loopy cables.

But regardless, carbon for me, much more interesting shapes.

Alek

Defo steel for me. Wiler above is awesome :-)

Darkglasses

Vintage Steel

Modern carbon all the way for me. I'm 23, I'd feel like a bit of a fake riding a bike that's much, much older than me.

Lumen

That Colnago groupset shot made a mess in my pants.

Squidgy Black

Vintage Steel

Carbon all the way. But then again I'm younger than all of you so I can imagine the old-timers revelling in days gone-by

DirkVoodoo

Vintage Steel

Lumen wrote: »

That Colnago groupset shot made a mess in my pants.

"Wear this chain around your neck, hold these pedals and move your arms in a circle, I want to ride you like a bicycle, dear".

mcgratheoin

Tough one - there's such variety in carbon that it's hard to generalise - I don't really like that Merckx carbon bike (particularly the seatpost) but the Wilier is very nice (although I absolutely hate those curved top tubes without internal cable routing - it ruins the lines).

In general I prefer the modern lines though.

Chips Lovell

Vintage Steel

Give me fat, fat tubes and deep, deep rims any day.

Ole Rodrigo

Vintage Steel

I'd be inclined towards steel, but I saw the new Tarmac SL4 in Cycleways recently and it is stunning. Some carbon frames are a bit too garish though.

The recent steel frames of Pegoretti, Milani etc are beautiful with modern groups. Sort of a compromise I guess.

Seweryn

There are nice and good looking modern and old bikes and the other way round, all depends.

But in general, when beauty is concerned - Steel all the way!

Cee-Jay-Cee

Vintage Steel

I love the modern carbon bike look however that vintage Merckx is stunning and I would love to own something similar!

Idleater

Carbon / steel > open mould carbon.

I like frames that actually do something interesting with the material's properties. I also like my modern steel bike for its simple understated lines.

Brian?

Vintage Steel

Carbon every day for me.

There's something very special about the way it can be shaped. Deeps rims make them even nicer.

VanhireBoys

Its Vintage steel all the way for me.

Ive shown many a willy waving carbon jockey the way home on my 30 year old 979 Duralinox ... ! I have 12 Simplex gears, GP4's, downtube friction shifters and "Loopy" brake cables... !

Our club is in the middle of discussions about organising a race/time-trial for pre-1987 bikes. The interest is there in fairness and we will have elidgebility scrutineers to make sure that no modern stuff slips the net.

I hear a lot of people slating fixies but if it wasnt for them then frames would simply get thrown away - At least fixies are preserving a bit of that history even if its in another guise

Whats in your shed...?

Seweryn

Idleater wrote: »

I like frames that actually do something interesting with the material's properties.

Just a gentle reminder, this thread is all about the aesthetics (and aesthetics only) .

The tax man

Love the lines of a classic steel frame.
I don't hate carbon as a material but more the horrendous angles of the tubing they had going on a few years back.
To me, a horizontal top tube is key to a nice looking frame. Thank god alot of the newer frames are starting to return to near level top tubes.

Got a laugh out of Carlton Kirby during the TDF when he described the bikes from a few years back, saying that it looked like the riders had borrowed their little sisters bike, such was the extreme slope on the top tube.

feck sake lads

emm hard to choose really i have 2 steel bikes Raleigh 753 road bike and Thorn tourer could not fault either one.
i sold my look kx light that was full carbon stunner.

nah fook it give me steel any day.;)

Darkglasses

Vintage Steel

VanhireBoys wrote: »

Ive shown many a willy waving carbon jockey the way home on my 30 year old 979 Duralinox ... !

I've read a few different people make posts like this and still don't understand why they have a problem with people on carbon bikes.

Plastik

Vintage Steel

Both can be beautiful. There are plenty modern carbon frames that are simply stunning to look at, and thankfully have the performance to match.

TinyExplosions

I like both...

for example, this is lovely (and is steel with modern components)



But I also like this

feck sake lads

http://www.paulusquiros.co.uk/#/super-randonneur/4575158489
how do you like this beauti.:cool:

Holyboy

I haven't posted anything constructive in quite some time(so I won't start now!) I hate all bikes equally:P

But if pushed on the matter I would have to go with steel, it would be steel MTB frames that do it for me though, I rode a Nitanium Rockhopper for a good few years which I still miss, it's still in good hands in the U.K. though and has been on some good tours.

Carbon is carbon, I find it boring but if one is competing at a high level it's a must.

As for group sets I just love the old ones even the cheap ones, they just had something about them, companies trying new things and trying to out do each other, I know it's still happening these days but nothing has drastically changed for a long time now which is a bit boring.

That's my two cents any ways.

Idleater

Seweryn wrote: »

Just a gentle reminder, this thread is all about the aesthetics (and aesthetics only) .

Thanks, I know all about aesthetics and I specifically mentioned in my post that I liked aesthetics above run of the mill.

happytramp

Idleater wrote: »

Thanks, I know all about aesthetics and I specifically mentioned in my post that I liked aesthetics above run of the mill.

....;)

niceonetom

There are carbon bikes I lust after and there are steel bike I lust after. And there are ugly bikes in all materials (and from all eras) too. I think it's a bit of an impossible question really. I detest retro-ism as a concept, the new massive Mini or VW Beatle, the faux-bakelite DABS radio etc. aping the past while completely missing the point of what made those designs great the first time.

I've noticed that a lot of the bikes I really get horny for are avant-guard - the first attempt at something new, something slightly outrageous. Delta-brakes, the first Campy attempts at deep section alu rims, Boardman's Lotus, Indurain's insane aero lid, Eddy Merckx's drillium, all all the brilliant madness in this photo...

I love all that stuff, the ideas that went from cutting-edge to nostalgia-p0rn so fast they never really had their day. I don't know what from our era will be looked back on so fondly (probably not much thanks to the restrictive UCI code) but when I look back at all those dudes in leather helmets on steel bikes and think how fcuking awesome they were, it's important to bear in mind that they were not looking back. They were looking ahead, trying to make a better bike, a faster bike, a lighter bike, a more aero bike, a bike to win races. I have more esteem for manufacturers that mimic that attitude than for ones that mimic the aesthetic.

dave2pvd

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I like both...

I also like this

I'm with you on that one. Who says CF cannot be elegant?

Where things get ridiculous is when form overtakes function. Sadly, Pinarello seem to be the epicenter of this trend:

Raam

Vintage Steel

I love a nice carbon frame, but some of these aero monstrosities are awful...

Sorry Beasty...






Apart from Ridley who have mostly got it right with the Noah.

happytramp

Are you sure that last one is made by Ridley?

colm_gti

Apart from the Noah, aero bikes are rank :eek:

OldBean

Can't stand the usual carbon frames. I like older bikes, classic shapes and colours. I just find they've a better charisma and lifetime than the new models.

Cyclewizard

Steel for me. Carbon as a material in general just seems a bit 'soul-less'. But then I also prefer the look of an old spitfire to modern aircraft or a classic car so maybe I'm just old fashioned!

Cookie_Monster

carbon for me but curvy top tubes, no thanks!

The tax man

niceonetom wrote: »

I've noticed that a lot of the bikes I really get horny for are avant-guard - the first attempt at something new, something slightly outrageous. Delta-brakes, the first Campy attempts at deep section alu rims, Boardman's Lotus, Indurain's insane aero lid, Eddy Merckx's drillium, all all the brilliant madness in this photo...

Ok not the prettiest of bikes but in the same vain of innovation as the above examples that had a brief outing.
Steve Bauer on a crazy laid back Merckx that had two outings,Ghent-Wevelgem and Paris Roubaix


As niceonetom said due to the UCI we don't get to see this kind of stuff anymore. Roubaix,nowadays at best brings us CX brakes and 25-27mm tubs.
God be with the days that the stuff you saw on TV just wasn't available in the LBS.

The tax man

Idleater wrote: »

Thanks, I know all about aesthetics and I specifically mentioned in my post that I liked aesthetics above run of the mill.

When it comes to seat stays....Rottenhat's gorgeous Dave Kirk frame and those beautifully crafted stays.

Raam

Vintage Steel

This is nice.

Raam

Vintage Steel

There's always modern steel...

niceonetom

Raam wrote: »

There's always modern steel...

And vintage carbon (with bonded alu lugs!)

Raam

Vintage Steel

We have this in the vintage CF category.

Seaneh

Lugged and brazed steel frames ftw if you ask me.

Steel is real and all that.

AstraMonti

I don't think it could come down to one, steel, titanium, carbon, wood everything can be gorgeous if you invest the time of making it look good.

I love this:



as much as I love this one:



and this



and this..



and this too

happytramp

I think the Madison Genesis team bike strikes a nice balance.



Even manages to make the new DA group look sexy

Planet X

Seems.........."everything" has gone STEALTH. (Ducks)
How long you reckon it'll last?

lennymc

happytramp wrote: »

I think the Madison Genesis team bike strikes a nice balance.



Even manages to make the new DA group look sexy

anything looks good in gulf colours!

TinyExplosions

This is nice too

happytramp

It seems to me that whether the bike has a 'modern' or 'classic' look is as dependent on the stem/handlebar set up as it is on the frame geometry and material.

dave2pvd

Cyclewizard wrote: »

Steel for me. Carbon as a material in general just seems a bit 'soul-less'.

It doesn't ride 'soulless' though. At least the quality frames don't. I've raced Specialized for 5 years now. SL3, S-Works and SL4. Absolutely sublime ride. Nothing dead or soulless about any of them. However, a cheap frame will ride like a cheap frame, regardless of material.

I think soulless often applies to aluminum frames. The material cannot 'give' like CF or steel. Well, it can, but then bad things happen. Like the DeHavilland Comet.

enas

I like better steel than carbon fibre.

I have to admit a penchant for vintage steel bikes (and by vintage I mean real vintage bikes, I hate modern retro-looking bikes), but I equally like many of the modern steel frame bikes. With the big comeback of steel, I've seen a lot of very beautiful machines being produced recently (especially by British brands).

Having said that, I liked a few of the CF bikes shown in this thread too, such as the Cervelo in one of the first posts, so at the end it's not just about the material. On the other hand, I hate the usual designs that go with CF, such as curvy top tubes, not to mention Pinarello frames, which are fugly altogether. I find they often look like the cycling equivalent to boyracers tuned cars.

I know it's not the topic of this thread, but the best about steel, at least good quality steel frames, is obviously the ride quality. It's something that has to be experienced to be understood, but it's so hard to get used to anything else after.

And to finish with a photo, here's my latest acquisition, which I absolutely adore (sorry, I forgot to put the chain on the big chainring):

hesker

I have and ride both but steel is where my heart is

Just a couple (not mine)



Love those chrome socks

Or for a few dollars more


This one is mine but I have it set up a little differently


http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/marastoni.htm

doozerie

From a purely aesthetic point of view I much prefer compact framesets, that sloping top tube is much more appealing to me than a horizontal one. This is at least partly motivated by the fact that I am small, and with their sloped top tubes compact frames look smaller and therefore seem more my size - by contrast, a horizontal top tube makes a bike look more like a gate, and one that I'd need a step ladder to climb onto in most cases (photos of older bikes in particular seem to show medium and large frames more often than not), which instantly puts me off.

So the first thing that I notice when I see a picture of a bike is the slope, or not, of the top tube and my view of the bike is instantly biased by that. Most of the photos of steel frames that I see are ones with a horizontal top tube so on balance I tend to dislike them, but less because of the material than the design. Elaborate steel lugs have the same affect on me, they just seem unnecessarily ornate/cheesy and/or industrial so I'm put off by frames that have them.

And then there is the groupset too. The older groupsets I've ridden have not been a patch on modern groupsets, performance wise, and because I value the performance more than the appearance I'm automatically biased against the older parts. I struggle to view them purely in aesthetic terms, the bias wins out, but even on aesthetics alone I strongly dislike brake levers with cables jutting out the top.

So for the most part older steel-framed bikes I find quite ugly, many of the modern carbon bikes I find very easy on the eye (the Pinarello being a notable exception, looks far too much like a Curly Wurly). But the Condor that TinyExplosions posted a picture of above is lovely and I'd happily have one of those, which means I can't honestly choose either option in the poll.