Is steel still real?

[davesnothere]

I am an oldtimer returning from a 15 year hiatus from riding and road racing. Have my 90's LeMond TSX in great condition, and was wondering how much better the composite bikes are. Weight and stiffness are obvious differences. What about comfort? Many of these bikes cost more than I paid for my last car. Want to begin riding with the local clubs again and eventually time trials.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Steel is still very much real. If the bike is still in great shape you're good to go. Ride a lot, and you'll have the plastic cycling chic scratching their heads why an old guy on an old steel rig is smoking us. It's the best feeling.

 

[SpartacusRox]

I am an oldtimer returning from a 15 year hiatus from riding and road racing. Have my 90's LeMond TSX in great condition, and was wondering how much better the composite bikes are. Weight and stiffness are obvious differences. What about comfort? Many of these bikes cost more than I paid for my last car. Want to begin riding with the local clubs again and eventually time trials.

I agree with RD. I race on a carbon Scott but I do almost all my training miles on a steel Cervelo Super Prodigy. I love it and although it's not as stiff as the Scott I find it just as comfortable and miles better than virtually all the aluminium frames I have had in the past.

Weight is not that big a factor in club racing, especially in the lower grades where some guys carry the weight of another bike around their middle. Componentry and wheels are probably the biggest difference between your bike and new models.

 

[brianf7]

I am using titanium now but steel is still good a number of frame builders are using new reynolds steel tubes Fico is very light but not for big guys but the new steels are great.
Nothing wrong with reynolds 531 it was good enough for the lancaster bombers during the dam busters raid during WW2.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

I am an oldtimer returning from a 15 year hiatus from riding and road racing. Have my 90's LeMond TSX in great condition, and was wondering how much better the composite bikes are. Weight and stiffness are obvious differences. What about comfort? Many of these bikes cost more than I paid for my last car. Want to begin riding with the local clubs again and eventually time trials.

Weight is vastly overplayed in today's bicycle marketplace. BIG $ to save maybe 2-4 pounds, a small percentage of the rider/bike package. Every carbon frame is made different, with different shapes, tubes sizes, method of construction, threadsperinch, etc, so each rides differently. The mantra today seems to be 'lighter and stiffer' but 'stiffer' is subjective. So, in a nut shell, a carbon bike 'may' be 'better' and may not be. The only things you can measure in a bike shop is weight and price and most bike shops will imply lighter and more expensive='better' but that isn't necessarily true.

If ya like the Lemond, ride it. It will last forever, looks great and probably rides like a dream.

 

[53 x 11]

Old frame, fine.

Old groupo, hmmmmmmm.

Old Tyres. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[powerste]

I don't race, but ride what I consider to be a respectably light steel frame and absolutely love it. Lightweight is vastly overhyped due to the profit margins on expensive bikes/parts. Stiffness is arguably a more important factor for competitive racing, but IMHO is unlikely to materially affect performance riding with local clubs. Good training, nutrition, and overall fitness sure will, though!

I was a bit disappointed to read this in CN's update on Tour bikes this morning (my emphasis added):

"Officially unveiled two years ago, Giant's TCR Advanced SL includes all of the design features now considered virtually compulsory for modern frames: a tapered front end, an extra-wide bottom bracket shell with press-fit cups, an integrated seat mast, and optional internal wiring for Shimano's Dura-Ace Di2 system."

I don't mean to pick on author James Huang as he's just telling it like it is as far as "high end" racing bikes are concerned. However, my not-exactly-ancient (2006) frame has a 1" round head tube, normal ITA BB shell, a round seat tube for a 27.2 mm post, fully external cable routing, and a horizontal top tube to boot. It also fits me better than any production CF frame ever will (I'm 198 cm, long legs, long arms, long torso) and rides wonderfully over all kinds of roads. I regularly ride my plastic-bike buddies off my wheel when I'm on the front if I'm not paying close enough attention to them

Additionally, it's durable and repairable, and a known quantity in terms of longevity. If your post had said "I've got a 90's carbon fiber bike..." then I don't think many of us would encourage you to ride it

Fit and comfort, fit and comfort, fit and comfort . . .

 

[xmoonx]

http://www.smartcycles.com/bike_weight.htm

I am an oldtimer returning from a 15 year hiatus from riding and road racing. Have my 90's LeMond TSX in great condition, and was wondering how much better the composite bikes are. Weight and stiffness are obvious differences. What about comfort? Many of these bikes cost more than I paid for my last car. Want to begin riding with the local clubs again and eventually time trials.

Besides the obvious advantages to steel since you did mention weight, have a read

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

http://www.smartcycles.com/bike_weight.htm Besides the obvious advantages to steel since you did mention weight, have a read

Great essay. Further proof that you can't buy speed.

I used to work for Bill, he's now retired, but Torelli is still going strong. One of those icons of the industry in this country that is largely responsible for the interest in lightweight steel race machines that dates back over 30 years. And who could forget those rose colored radar dishes that he wears for eyeglasses.

Nice interview here: http://www.roadbikeaction.com/fly.aspx?layout=content&taxid=83&cid=52

 

[krebs303]

http://www.smartcycles.com/bike_weight.htm Besides the obvious advantages to steel since you did mention weight, have a read

2010 DeRosa Corum – Steel in the Peloton

But the Corum isn’t just for older riders trying to relive the glory days. With a weight of just 16 pounds for a fully equipped 59cm bike, the Corum is catching the eye of younger riders who’ve grown up only knowing carbon fiber, titanium and aluminum.

 

[powerste]

Great essay. Further proof that you can't buy speed.

I used to work for Bill, he's now retired, but Torelli is still going strong. One of those icons of the industry in this country that is largely responsible for the interest in lightweight steel race machines that dates back over 30 years. And who could forget those rose colored radar dishes that he wears for eyeglasses.

Nice interview here: http://www.roadbikeaction.com/fly.aspx?layout=content&taxid=83&cid=52

Bought my steel ride (Mondonico) from Smart Cycles and Bill and Carol were there the day I ordered it. I left with a signed copy of their 'History of the Tour de France.'

Can't say enough good things about Torelli, Mondonico, the McGanns, and Smart Cycles (Norwalk CT) owner Alex Stanek.

The weight essay is great - just goes to show that weight differences really aren't that great and that there are far more pieces to the bike puzzle than weight.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

Many of these bikes cost more than I paid for my last car.

I completely agree with you. The only reason I would tell you not to ride your old bike is that you might not want anything to happen to it out of sentimental value.

It seems like the cheapest real racing bikes start at around 1200 or 1300 dollars. At that price they are usually aluminum frames.

I will disagree with everyone here and say steel is no longer real. The affordable cro-moly steel frames are heavy in comparison to aluminum. The really lightweight steel frames are super expensive, and are still heavier than a fairly cheap aluminum frame and definitely heavier than a similarly priced carbon frame.

However, steel does ride really nicely and has an awesome feel. Yet if what you want is the lightest meanest bike for the money to race the local criterium, then I think a cheap aluminum frame is the way to go.

I was thinking about getting one of those $99 dollar aluminum frames that Nashbar sells. I have heard they are fairly light, and the price (obviously) can't be beat.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

http://www.smartcycles.com/bike_weight.htm Besides the obvious advantages to steel since you did mention weight, have a read

I agree with some of the points in that article. However, for the same price an aluminum frame will almost always be cheaper than a cro-moly frame. Aluminum is cheap, and it is light. Cheap cro-moly steel, like the 4130 stuff used on bmx bikes is heavy. Lightweight steel is expensive.

As far as "people place too much importance on weight," well obviously that is true. They also place too much importance on aero parts. So the rest of the article should go on to recommend flat (non-aero) rims, round spokes, 28mm tires, Brooks saddles, steel axles, etc. Except they don't mention any of that. I wonder why. Oh it is because they want to sell you one of their steel frames. However if you want to throw 2k away on a set of deep section carbon rims or 400 bucks titanium axles, they won't stop you.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

I don't race, but ride what I consider to be a respectably light steel frame and absolutely love it. Lightweight is vastly overhyped due to the profit margins on expensive bikes/parts. Stiffness is arguably a more important factor for competitive racing, but IMHO is unlikely to materially affect performance riding with local clubs. Good training, nutrition, and overall fitness sure will, though!

I was a bit disappointed to read this in CN's update on Tour bikes this morning (my emphasis added):

"Officially unveiled two years ago, Giant's TCR Advanced SL includes all of the design features now considered virtually compulsory for modern frames: a tapered front end, an extra-wide bottom bracket shell with press-fit cups, an integrated seat mast, and optional internal wiring for Shimano's Dura-Ace Di2 system."

I don't mean to pick on author James Huang as he's just telling it like it is as far as "high end" racing bikes are concerned. However, my not-exactly-ancient (2006) frame has a 1" round head tube, normal ITA BB shell, a round seat tube for a 27.2 mm post, fully external cable routing, and a horizontal top tube to boot. It also fits me better than any production CF frame ever will (I'm 198 cm, long legs, long arms, long torso) and rides wonderfully over all kinds of roads. I regularly ride my plastic-bike buddies off my wheel when I'm on the front if I'm not paying close enough attention to them

Additionally, it's durable and repairable, and a known quantity in terms of longevity. If your post had said "I've got a 90's carbon fiber bike..." then I don't think many of us would encourage you to ride it

Fit and comfort, fit and comfort, fit and comfort . . .

"the design features now considered virtually compulsory for modern frames[/B]: a tapered front end, an extra-wide bottom bracket shell with press-fit cups, an integrated seat mast, and optional internal wiring for Shimano's Dura-Ace Di2 system."

Check and check but what James doesn't mention is that all these items make the frames less expensive to make. Big tubes hooked to big tubes, no threads, specific to that frame forks, no cable stops...WHY the makers are 4 square behind these so called 'innovations'. What it also does is make every frame like every other frame...like looking at a parking lot of Toyotas.

 

[Black Dog]

I will disagree with everyone here and say steel is no longer real. The affordable cro-moly steel frames are heavy in comparison to aluminum. The really lightweight steel frames are super expensive, and are still heavier than a fairly cheap aluminum frame and definitely heavier than a similarly priced carbon frame.

However, steel does ride really nicely and has an awesome feel. Yet if what you want is the lightest meanest bike for the money to race the local criterium, then I think a cheap aluminum frame is the way to go.

A few pounds on a flat criterium will not matter. Please keep the acceleration argument on the shelve; it too does not align with the laws of physics. Why ride a bike that is uncomfortable just to save a bit of weight? The essay on the web site may be intended to help them sell bikes but the physics is real and weight is not a huge deal when the total bike rider package is considered. The mindless obsession with bike mass is not backed up by reality. It has become a repetitive delusion with very little evidence to back the fervour of the claims and beliefs. When all other factors are optimized (body mass, training etc...) then saving a bit of weight on the bike will make a difference. Saving a kilo on your bike will not make you a faster rider unless you are climbing some big stuff or the placebo effect has swept over you.

 

[TopCarbon]

I have not ridden a steel frame in so many years I can teen remember what it would feel like. Don't think I could go back. I live in a very humid climate and, even though rust protection is better, I will stay with my carbon fiber triangles.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

A few pounds on a flat criterium will not matter. Please keep the acceleration argument on the shelve; it too does not align with the laws of physics.

Speaking of physics... F=ma (that is Force = mass x acceleration).

If you calculate that same equation for acceleration,
you get a=F/m (acceleration = Force divided by mass).

So however you look at it, applying the same force will yield more acceleration with a lighter bike. Or another way to look at it would be, to get the same amount of acceleration as a lighter bike, you would need to apply more force.

How on earth can you say " it does not align with the laws of physics"????

It also sounds like you have never ridden a criterium on a short, flat course. They are basically comprised of a series of short sprints between the corners. Having a stiff and light bike is critical, and definitely outweighs the comfort "advantage" of a steel frame.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Speaking of physics... F=ma (that is Force = mass x acceleration).

If you calculate that same equation for acceleration,
you get a=F/m (acceleration = Force divided by mass).

So however you look at it, applying the same force will yield more acceleration with a lighter bike. Or another way to look at it would be, to get the same amount of acceleration as a lighter bike, you would need to apply more force.

How on earth can you say " it does not align with the laws of physics"????

It also sounds like you have never ridden a criterium on a short, flat course. They are basically comprised of a series of short sprints between the corners. Having a stiff and light bike is critical, and definitely outweighs the comfort "advantage" of a steel frame.

Don't want to speak for Blackdog but what i'm thinkin he's meaning is spending huge $ to save a few hundred grams on the bicycle, when considering the bike rider package is 80,000+ grams, that 'improvement', along with not being consistent, is mostly lost in the noise. Bike makers and wheel makers(less weight at the rim!!, another big misconception) howl about improved acceleration cuz their 'thing' is 200 grams lighter, why you should buy that...well that's just marketing 101.

Having a stiff bike makes a difference, a 'light' bike, not so much.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

Don't want to speak for Blackdog but what i'm thinkin he's meaning is spending huge $ to save a few hundred grams on the bicycle, when considering the bike rider package is 80,000+ grams, that 'improvement', along with not being consistent, is mostly lost in the noise.

Oh I basically agree with that. However, throw a really lightweight set of wheels on your bike, and you can instantly feel how much quicker it accelerates. Or switch from your normal bike to a super lightweight bike, and again you can feel how much quicker it accelerates.

I would still prefer the lightest frame I can get for the money. The lightweight cro-moly frames are much more expensive than aluminum frames that weigh the same or less.

 

[James Huang]

Rule of thumb is always the same for steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon frames: for whatever your budget, buy the best example of whatever material you can afford. A budget carbon frame generally won't be as good as the best titanium one, a cheap titanium one won't be as good as the best aluminum one, and so on.

Granted, this is a big generalization but hopefully you get the point.

Moreover, with few exceptions (by definition, carbon fiber as a *material* truly is the be-all-end-all in terms of weight and stiff - zero room for argument here), the range of frame material choices isn't a strict hierarchy. Manufacturers have gotten pretty good at manipulating aluminum and titanium but not much has happened with the alloys themselves over the last few years, it seems we're approaching an asymptote in terms of strict weight/stiffness numbers for carbon fiber, and despite steel's inherent disadvantage in terms of density, some of the new alloys are truly incredible.

It all depends on what particular set of characteristics you're going for and as always, it's ultimately limited by your budget. Ride everything you can and do as much research as possible but ultimately, your ****, hands and feet will generally tell you everything you need to know.

Back to the original question, though: is steel still 'real'? Personally, I'd say more so than ever but the best examples of the stuff are awfully expensive.

 

[Anonymous]

interesting historical perspective

 

[Big GMaC]

Why is she out of the kitchen?

But seriously in the winter I train on my steel SS and it a hard thing to give up come the summer

 

[ElChingon]

The ride of Steel is nice but the modern good carbon frames duplicate this easily and at a lighter weight and with extra stiffness in the right places so you don't get any flex, especially in the BB area and fork/head-tube. Steel can be made to be as stiff the but the weight penalty is much larger to to the weight and amount of the material needed. Carbon is also super customizable and depending on the type of ride you want you can buy a frame for that purpose, whether it be centuries, crits, road races, etc.

Having used Steel, Aluminum, and Carbon, now its all Carbon, Aluminum may be light but its easily broken/cracked/bent or I have, Steel takes a beating but after a few tweaks due to crashes it doesn't ride quite the same either but is ride-able assuming no failure is detected. Carbon is a very questionable material after a crash but its not that mysterious to the trained ear, it does take a beating and catastrophic failures are due to catastrophic crashes as well or poorly maintained equipment or defective, which is the same factor in Aluminum/Steel.

I have never ridden Titanium but its mainly because it has never drawn me to it but I have seen many a cracked Ti frame from others who do ride them, maybe that's in the back of my mind when I am confronted with them? As I have spotted said cracks on their frames, so you know I am looking even closer at my equipment if I can see cracks in others who I only ride for a few hours.

As for the acceleration equation, you left out one main factor, drag. The lightest bike will do no good if you are wearing baggy pants and a jacket/vest that makes you look like the Michelin man or stay puff marshmallow man.

In conclusion, if steel were still so real why are all the frame manufactures main frames carbon? Cost? No way you can tell me Carbon is cheaper to make than a steel frame, same for Aluminum. Everyone has their likes and dislikes but unless you actually try them you won't know. I have caused a die hard steel frame rider dump his frame for a carbon and he's not looking back either, he keeps saying he has no idea why he stuck with steel for so long had he tried carbon sooner he's of switched sooner. He weights 125 and now flies up the hills where before he just rode up them fast, maybe I should put him back on steel so I can keep up.

 

[Black Dog]

Oh I basically agree with that. However, throw a really lightweight set of wheels on your bike, and you can instantly feel how much quicker it accelerates. Or switch from your normal bike to a super lightweight bike, and again you can feel how much quicker it accelerates.

I would still prefer the lightest frame I can get for the money. The lightweight cro-moly frames are much more expensive than aluminum frames that weigh the same or less.

1st. Thanks BustedKnuckle. You made my point exactly. When you look at the total mass of bike plus rider the differences in frame weights are not significant when confounded with the myriad of other factors. Don't focus on the horse shoes and ignore the horse.

2nd. Saying you can instantly feel the how much quicker a lighter set of wheels accelerates is really an example of observational bias. You are expecting a difference and convince yourself that you feel it. Try the wheels under the control of a blind study where riders are not aware of what they are riding. You will see that there is no perceived difference. The increase on acceleration from lighter wheels will fall below the perception threshold for humans. You are forgetting the mass of the rider and bike.

F=MA

81kg (~180lbs Bike plus rider) X 7m/s/s (2km/h/s this is hard acceleration) = 567 Newtons
82kg x 7m/s/s = 574 N

574N - 567N = 7N and 7N/574N = 0.0122 X 100% = 1.22% less force to accelerate the 1kg (2.2lb) lighter bike. Of course this ignores wind resistance which increases the total force required, regardless of mass and thus further reduces the positive effect of a lighter bike in terms of acceleration.

So. Does 1.22% really make a noticeable difference? Now do the calculations for a few hundred grams that lighter wheels makes and you are in the range of 0.2%. Oh yea...that is some serious speed.

 

[SlantParallelogram]

1st. Thanks BustedKnuckle. You made my point exactly. When you look at the total mass of bike plus rider the differences in frame weights are not significant when confounded with the myriad of other factors. Don't focus on the horse shoes and ignore the horse.

2nd. Saying you can instantly feel the how much quicker a lighter set of wheels accelerates is really an example of observational bias. You are expecting a difference and convince yourself that you feel it. Try the wheels under the control of a blind study where riders are not aware of what they are riding. You will see that there is no perceived difference. The increase on acceleration from lighter wheels will fall below the perception threshold for humans. You are forgetting the mass of the rider and bike.

F=MA

81kg (~180lbs Bike plus rider) X 7m/s/s (2km/h/s this is hard acceleration) = 567 Newtons
82kg x 7m/s/s = 574 N

574N - 567N = 7N and 7N/574N = 0.0122 X 100% = 1.22% less force to accelerate the 1kg (2.2lb) lighter bike. Of course this ignores wind resistance which increases the total force required, regardless of mass and thus further reduces the positive effect of a lighter bike in terms of acceleration.

So. Does 1.22% really make a noticeable difference? Now do the calculations for a few hundred grams that lighter wheels makes and you are in the range of 0.2%. Oh yea...that is some serious speed.

You sound like you have never ridden a set of really lightweight wheels. You can feel how light they are simply by cranking the pedals with your hands while the bike is sitting on the work stand.

In the same way that you can feel the difference between lifting a 2kg weight and a 1kg weight in your hand, you can feel the difference in the way a lightweight wheel accelerates whether you are riding the bike or if it is on the workstand.

You can definitely feel how much faster really lightweight wheels accelerate. The time when you really feel the weight difference with a lightweight set of wheels is from a near or full stop, like a trackstand when racing on the track.

Finally, YOUR MATH IS ALL WRONG!!!!!!!

7m/s/s = (7x60)meters/minute/s = 420 meters/minute/s

420 meters/minute/s = (420x60)meters/hour/s = 25200 meters/hour/s

25200 meters/hour/s = (25200 / 1000)km/hour/s = 25.2 km/hr/s

Since you couldn't even get the simple unit conversion correct, I didn't even bother to check the math in the rest of your equations, which I am assuming is probably also totally wrong.