More metal fans than an Iron Maiden concert

[rgmerk]

On the "what bike should I buy" thread, and others, I note that there seems to be a lot of fans of steel and titanium frames.

As somebody who's relatively new to all this and has only ridden aluminium and carbon frames, what's the appeal of metal frames?

Carbon is light, can be made as stiff as you want, has very tunable ride characteristics, can be made into a broad variety of shapes so you can improve the aerodynamics (yes, most of the time you're drafting...but a) at least some aerodynamic advantage would still apply even when you're drafting, and b) the times when you're not drafting are the bits that decide the race).

On the other side, there seems to be a) a belief that metal is more durable, and b) that carbon bikes made in Taiwanese factories have no soul.

I agree that carbon bikes are potentially fragile, but then, I've had a few nasty spills on mine and the frame has survived without damage. Furthermore, isn't a lightweight steel or even titanium bike likely to be made out of the lightest possible metal and thus be quite fragile in its own right?

So that leaves us with the soul thing. Look, I get this to some extent. I've driven a 1960s MG convertible on a twisty mountain road (a nice climb on a bike, too...) and had a lot more fun than a much faster modern sports car. But is there really that much difference in the feel to justify spending what amounts to several month's salary for most people on such a bike?

I'm really not trying to troll - just curious as to what I'm missing.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

On the "what bike should I buy" thread, and others, I note that there seems to be a lot of fans of steel and titanium frames.

As somebody who's relatively new to all this and has only ridden aluminium and carbon frames, what's the appeal of metal frames?

Carbon is light, can be made as stiff as you want, has very tunable ride characteristics, can be made into a broad variety of shapes so you can improve the aerodynamics (yes, most of the time you're drafting...but a) at least some aerodynamic advantage would still apply even when you're drafting, and b) the times when you're not drafting are the bits that decide the race).

On the other side, there seems to be a) a belief that metal is more durable, and b) that carbon bikes made in Taiwanese factories have no soul.

I agree that carbon bikes are potentially fragile, but then, I've had a few nasty spills on mine and the frame has survived without damage. Furthermore, isn't a lightweight steel or even titanium bike likely to be made out of the lightest possible metal and thus be quite fragile in its own right?

So that leaves us with the soul thing. Look, I get this to some extent. I've driven a 1960s MG convertible on a twisty mountain road (a nice climb on a bike, too...) and had a lot more fun than a much faster modern sports car. But is there really that much difference in the feel to justify spending what amounts to several month's salary for most people on such a bike?

I'm really not trying to troll - just curious as to what I'm missing.

Well, aluminum is metal, btw.

Of the things you look for in a bicycle frame...like looks, cost, ride(VERY subjective, I know), stiffness where it counts, repairability, weight, crash worthy-ness, etc, I think the best combination of these things is still steel. Titanium is a close second but can be lots more expensive.

Yep, and soul-ness, luddite type things that some older(and younger) riders look for.

 

[titan_90]

Read this

But for me it comes down to looks, sure some carbon bikes look sweet but they can't come close to the looks of a custom lugged steel frame. It's like the difference between cheap mass-produced crap beer like Budweiser and a great small batch made micro brew that is made with a passion for what they are doing there is just no comparison(for me at least).

 

[egtalbot]

Interesting link, titan_90. I rode steel frames when I raced for a couple years in the 1980's, then took 20 years off from cycling and since then have ridden only aluminum and carbon. What I can say is that the ride on the aluminum and carbon bikes today is so much better than the two reasonably high end steel bikes I had back (the best was an Austro-Daimler) then that it is no comparison.

maybe today's steel frames are better. But I do think that article is severely slanted towards steel - it is not any kind of attempt at an objective look. It's a good summary of what steel proponents will tell you is good about steel. But the idea that somehow I'd want a bike that is less stiff? I'm sure some people do, but for me it's pretty amusing. And the idea that I can get a custom, three pound steel frame for the same price as a good carbon frame doesn't make sense. Certainly I can can get a carbon one for $1000 U.S. or less - my whole Kestrel Talon SL with Ultegra, which I love, was under $2000. If, as the article says, framebuilders are putting 100 hours or more into the custom frames, I don't think they're selling them for that price. and the comment about the geometry being bad for cyclocross, while perhaps having a grain of truth, is mostly stretching reality.

I'm sure some of the article's other points about steel are dead on - durability, soul, and individualization options. But as an analysis of pros and cons, it falls short.

 

[titan_90]

But I do think that article is severely slanted towards steel - it is not any kind of attempt at an objective look. It's a good summary of what steel proponents will tell you is good about steel.

I agree with that it's a very biased article. I read a very good article recently that compared the different frame materials but I am having trouble finding it again. Once I find it I'll post it.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Here's a couple essays by Bill McGann of Torelli fame. If you're not familiar with Bill, he is one of the handful of people in this country that is directly responsible for the import of lightweight Italian steel race bikes craze in the 70's.

Biased as well, but more informative than that previous article.

Steel, Aluminum, Ti or Carbon?

Bicycle Weight, the Benefits Quantified

IMHO, custom steel bikes are more about the ride quality and individuality. I'd rather spend hard earned money on a well crafted, custom fitted, steel or ti rig, than a mass produced, one size fits all, carbon frame (which I own one, thanks to Joe Papp, and it's ok for what it is) from Asia. Since I'm not racing for large purses on a pro team (which most people reading this fall in the same boat), lightest and stiffest is not my main concern.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Scott Nicol of Strong Frames also has comprehensive essays on frame material.

http://www.strongframes.com/more_stuff/materials_tech/metallurgy/

 

[BroDeal]

Some of it comes down to carbon bikes being over priced. Why pay $$$ for something mass produced in China when you can pay the same $$$ for a custom frame. On top of that everyone and their dog has a frame made by one of the larger companies, while for the same $$$ you can get something unique. I feel like I am being ripped off when a company wants to sell me a frame that cost $200 to make in China for a price similar to what I can have handbuilt in the U.S. by someone who makes a living U.S. wage.

As for ride differences, I have never felt there are much in the way of differences between top end bikes as long as they fit you.

 

[David Suro]

The ride qualities of steel, titanium, aluminum and carbon are vastly different.

Aluminum frames are generally very stiff, which is good for power transfer. The downside of aluminum is that the material is very efficient at transmitting vibration. Thus, the ride quality of aluminum on rough roads or long rides is very unforgiving.

Carbon is generally as stiff as aluminum, but the material absorbs vibration. The ride quality is fast and smooth, but feels somewhat 'flat'.

Steel is not as stiff as carbon or aluminum. The frames generally have more lateral felexibility in the bottom bracket. The ride quality of steel is more lively. The flexibilty of steel leads to a comfortable ride, but performance of power transfer is somewhat compromised.

Titanium is very similar to steel in ride feel, but lighter and resistant to corrosion. The price point is vastly different.

These statements are generalities. There are many different types of each material. Tube thickness, carbon lay-out, and frame geometry also play huge roles in determining ride quality.

I am currently on a steel frame with a carbon fork, carbon seat stays and carbon chain stays. It isn't the fastest bike I have ever owned, but it is by far the most comfortable and enjoyable to ride.

The choice of materials should be dictated largely by how the rider intends to use the bike. Racers are willing to compromise comfort for performance, to an extent.

 

[rgmerk]

Thanks for the replies, and treating the question in the spirit in which it was asked.

Can't say I'm entirely sold on the idea of steel or Ti though

Some thoughts:

* I'm very much a function over form kinda person. I'd never ride a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, which has its functionality heavily compromised so it can look the way it does. And I figure it's the same with a bicycle - it's for riding, not looking at. The coolest-looking bike at the local crit is the one that the winner is sitting on, IMO

* I agree comfort is amongst the highest priorities for non-racers, and frankly for racers a lot of the time (if your bike is uncomfortable, it can't help but affect your performance). But, at least for me on the roads I ride, bumps per se don't bother me too much. It's buzz from the coarse-chip road seal we routinely use here in Oz. Carbon does an excellent job of absorbing this.

* I also agree obsessing over the last gram of weight is pointless for most riders most of the time. But if you can have a lighter bike for the same or less cost than a heavier bike, without losing any other important features, why not take the light bike?

* Finally, assuming I'm still riding seriously in five years time, I'm pretty doubtful I'd keep the same frame, whatever frame material I choose. As time moves on, technology does improve - not as much as the bike manufacturers would have you believe, but it does improve significantly. So by the time my carbon frame wears out, I figure that a new frame will come along that offers significant improvements over the old one anyway.

 

[ViaPagliano]

Currently riding my very own Colnago Master Frame with a Steel Precisa Fork during the weekdays, and on the weekends when I go visit my parents, I'm riding my Dad's 2005 Cannondale Carbon Saeco Replica.

The only difference I feel is when I have to pick the bike up to put it back on it's hook in the garage, and that's just a couple lbs.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Can't say I'm entirely sold on the idea of steel or Ti though

You don't have to be sold on the idea of what somebody says on a forum. I've been riding and racing steel bikes for almost 20 years, and I know what I like.

The coolest-looking bike at the local crit is the one that the winner is sitting on, IMO

Hate to break it to ya, but it's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

But if you can have a lighter bike for the same or less cost than a heavier bike, without losing any other important features, why not take the light bike?

This is under the assumption that a well thought out bike purchase is only based on weight, which logic teaches us, that is just not the case. A modern steel race bike tig welded with Reynolds 953 or True Temper S3 is only tipping the scales at about 17lbs, so I don't see what all the fuss is about. You should read Bill's article about weight, I posted it for a reason.

* Finally, assuming I'm still riding seriously in five years time, I'm pretty doubtful I'd keep the same frame, whatever frame material I choose. As time moves on, technology does improve - not as much as the bike manufacturers would have you believe, but it does improve significantly. So by the time my carbon frame wears out, I figure that a new frame will come along that offers significant improvements over the old one anyway.

Most people that buy custom steel or Ti are buying it for a lifetime of use, not just to use for a few years then discard it. I spend a lot of time on gravel roads and carbon chatters way too much. I only use my carbon for those epic coulée rides in Western Wisconsin where the pavement is so smooth it doesn't seem real. Can't beat it up too much, as it's the runway model for my wheel Co. too.

 

[elapid]

I have a custom titanium Lynskey. The customization process included fitting but also an interview with David Lynskey so he could design my bike and tubing according to my riding characteristics and preferences. My aim with the Lynskey was to have a bike that I would keep for a lifetime. Bikes and components change - I'd rather be upgrading wheels and components than frames as well.

I also recently bought a Cervelo R3. I thought it might make a difference in climbing and hammerfests compared to the Lynskey. It didn't. The Lynskey fully kitted up (saddle, cages, wheels with PT hub, etc) weighs in at 6.9 kg, and this was 1.1 kg heavier than the R3. The weight difference would be nice if I was racing and I dropped 5-7 kg of my own frame, but I don't and I haven't! In addition, the Lynskey was just as stiff in the right areas and is more comfortable (which is saying something when you know of the R3's reputation), particularly on some of the rough Quebec roads. I sold the R3.

I am not saying don't buy carbon, the R3 was a beautiful bike. I do think manufacturers and their marketing teams concentrate on what the professional peloton are riding, but I was and never will be a professional. I ride my bike for enjoyment and I plenty enjoy my Lynskey.

PS. If you want to see cool - see what David Lynskey is doing to titanium tubes with the new Lynskey Helix (http://www.lynskeyperformance.com/a/pages/2009-products/road-bikes---lynskey-performance/titanium-road-bike---houseblend-helix.php). Light and fast was well as being cool.