Steel Frames

[mso]

In todays market we have some beautiful custom steel frames being built. The weights can be equal to that of a Legend Ti or Ottott and like bikes. So I'm wondering why more folks don't buy and ride steel? Can one build a steel bike to be have that "snap", be race worthy and comfortable? In the 80's we only had those beautiful steel bikes and we were flying up the hills then, why not now? Seems to me a custom steel frame can actually be finer tuned in regards to tubing to match the riders weight and riding style than for example a ti/carbon mix, unsure. Just my thoughts :bike:

[petitelilpettit]

I would say that it could be that steel still has its limitations, whereas a ti, carbon or ti/carbon mix can give you a similar ride quality without the limitations of steel. Also, people want titanium and carbon just because it is titanium and carbon. Some cannot understand why people are buying custom steel bikes. I think that steel bikes is the way to go with racing, as well. Fine tune it to have that "snap", and you are on your way to the podium.

Pettit

[atmo]

I would say that it could be that steel still has its limitations, whereas a ti, carbon or ti/carbon mix can give you a similar ride quality without the limitations of steel.
there is only one limitation with steel: since it lost its cache as
the go-to material in the manufacturing sector, most factories
and folks have moved away from it. the industry has concluded
that more units can be made for less money, and can extract a
higher profit, when nonferrous materials are used. when the
market forces are at work, ultimately an entire way of doing
something can be lost. it's no real bigee atmo since most industrial
made frames are higher quality than those made by hand even
as recently as 10 years ago. no matter. the material itself is not
what is limited. what we have here is a Sunset Boulevard situation:
JOE GILLES- "You're Norma Desmond, you used to be in pictures.
You used to be big."
NORMA- "I am big, it's the pictures that got small."

[petitelilpettit]

I envy you, atmo. I wish that I could be that eloquent when I write.

Pettit

[atmo]

I envy you, atmo. I wish that I could be that eloquent when I write.

Pettit
thanks -
it's easy - parrot popular culture as often as possible atmo.
plus, i lived through all of this and watched the industry
deconstruct all through the embers of the mtb era years.
deconstruction works in fashion houses, but not always
in the sporting goods industry.

[fiamme red]

what we have here is a Sunset Boulevard situation:
JOE GILLES- "You're Norma Desmond, you used to be in pictures.
You used to be big."
NORMA- "I am big, it's the pictures that got small."NORMA: They took the idols and smashed them, the Deis, the Galmozzis, the Pogliaghis! And who've we got now? Some nobodies!

[weiwentg]

there is only one limitation with steel: since it lost its cache as
the go-to material in the manufacturing sector, most factories
and folks have moved away from it.

well, I would have to add that it's hard to get sub 2.5lb frames with steel, afaik. with ti, alu and plastic, you can get 2lbs or less (although the 2lb ti frames are noodly). plus there's very little aero tubing available in steel (and only a bit more in ti), which is a disadvantage for TT bikes. those are the only two disadvantages I can think of, though. and with the right components, you can still get a 3lb steel frame down to the UCI limit. now, all that might change with more research.

[Steve Hampsten]

NORMA: They took the idols and smashed them, the Deis, the Galmozzis, the Pogliaghis! And who've we got now? Some nobodies!

my bro has a galmozzi

just saying

cute yaller thing

i met the guy back in '77 in milano - good egg, wanted to talk politics with my pa

[bfd]

In todays market we have some beautiful custom steel frames being built. The weights can be equal to that of a Legend Ti or Ottott and like bikes. So I'm wondering why more folks don't buy and ride steel? Can one build a steel bike to be have that "snap", be race worthy and comfortable? In the 80's we only had those beautiful steel bikes and we were flying up the hills then, why not now? Seems to me a custom steel frame can actually be finer tuned in regards to tubing to match the riders weight and riding style than for example a ti/carbon mix, unsure. Just my thoughts :bike:

Its my understanding that the *last* world champion on a steel frame using a Mariposa with carbon fork was Dede Barry at the 2002 Montreal World Cup:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/?id=2002/interviews/demet/RKdededemetbarry

[JF636]

I shop at a well known and large bike shop in the north dallas area. They have an impressive inventory of low to very high end bikes. That said, you would be hard pressed to find a steel tubed bicycle in there other than a few track/fixed gear bikes tucked in their own section. They could get you one...but the point is, that the many manufactures represented are using everything but steel. It appears the buying public has a lack of choices being delt to them. So by default, we take what they think we need (or like) or we go to small custom builders.

This is kind of an extention of the current thread about Boonan's bike/design. With an almost General Motors type attitude, the mega-makers are dictating to us what is "good" and not offering what we may really want. Fortunately, we have options and at price points that a lot of the mega-makers frames are charging. Good for us and bad for them.

BTW, the shop is top notch and was just using them as an example that is obviously widespread.

[dash]

I envy you, atmo. I wish that I could be that eloquent when I write.

Pettit


ATMO - torch brazer/torch bearer/poet

[Elefantino]

Steel is the new steel.

[atmo]

well, I would have to add that it's hard to get sub 2.5lb frames with steel, afaik. with ti, alu and plastic, you can get 2lbs or less (although the 2lb ti frames are noodly). plus there's very little aero tubing available in steel (and only a bit more in ti), which is a disadvantage for TT bikes. those are the only two disadvantages I can think of, though. and with the right components, you can still get a 3lb steel frame down to the UCI limit. now, all that might change with more research.
and why is this 1+ pound differnce thing a disadvantage? are you
benchpressing the bicycle? a frame is stationary weight and, as
such, is not subject to the same arguments that come when we
discuss wheel goods, or cranks, shoes, or anything that rotates.
and as far a shapes go, that is a mill spec, not one that is determined
by a material. and then there was alison steele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Steele) , aka the night bird.
she was hot, and a seminal voice in fm radio's history. she'd have
never reached that level had she been called alison titanium atmo.

[LesMiner]

I have a 2002 Raleigh Professional made of a steel alloy. It weighs 21 lbs with pedals and all. I also have a 2005 Litespeed Gishallo it weighs a little over 16 lbs also with pedals and all. A 5 pound difference. Both have Campy Chorus components. I rode both on a 25 miles loop for time. No traffic interruptions, stop lights, stop signs, etc. The terrain has some elevation change but no real climbs at all, mostly flat. My time difference on the first trial was within 2 seconds. I rode on succesive days all out, going for the best time. I did several more and mixed the direction, looping clockwise then counter clockwise to compensate for wind differences. Overall the Litespeed for me had for me had a 1 second advantage. So if I were a professional racer then the $3,500 difference in cost would worth it to have a greater advantage for a winning time. How much is a 1 to 2 second advantage worth? Both frames take advantage of special shaping to create a certain feel and response. I must say though the fit for me of the Raleigh is better than the Litespeed. The Raleigh has a level TT while the Litespeed is an extreme compact shape. Availability and cost of material have a dramatic effect on production costs. I think the move to materials other than steel is driven more by the desire of consumers to go faster. Given that manufacturers will get a bigger profit margin because of the hype to go faster. So if the difference in the real production cost of one material over the other is small but one material gets all the hype, then because of cost manufacturers will move to that material.

[weiwentg]

and why is this 1+ pound differnce thing a disadvantage? are you
benchpressing the bicycle? a frame is stationary weight and, as
such, is not subject to the same arguments that come when we
discuss wheel goods, or cranks, shoes, or anything that rotates.
and as far a shapes go, that is a mill spec, not one that is determined
by a material. and then there was alison steele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Steele) , aka the night bird.
she was hot, and a seminal voice in fm radio's history. she'd have
never reached that level had she been called alison titanium atmo.

if you're in the TDF, it is a potential disadvantage (assuming your total bike weight is 15.9 and your nearest competitor's is 14.9). every second and every watt does count. yes, for the hoi polloi, it doesn't matter in an objective sense, but the question was asked.

[atmo]

if you're in the TDF, it is a potential disadvantage (assuming your total bike weight is 15.9 and your nearest competitor's is 14.9). every second and every watt does count. yes, for the hoi polloi, it doesn't matter in an objective sense, but the question was asked.
and in a grand prix race, my outback wagon would
be a disadvantage atmo. using the tdf, to me, is not
a valid qualifier wrt this material discussion, but that's
just me. the folks who ride and/or supply these frames
that yield 14.9 or 15.9 pound bicycles have no expectations
of them other than to get to a finish line. even what happens
the next day hardly matters since the team (and supplier)
most likely has a tree in asia where all the frames are
harvested. note: this is not a political statement. it's just
my pov about why the nonferrous material are now (and
have been for a while) the go-to material in the manufacturing
sector atmo.

anyway, it's casual friday so cheers and bananas m'kay?
it' be an interesting exercise in its own right to find out if the
tdf "winners" are always the cats on the lightest bicycles or
if even watts call the shots. bicycle racing is a team sport,
and not just man against man or man against the clock atmo.

[Ray]

if you're in the TDF, it is a potential disadvantage (assuming your total bike weight is 15.9 and your nearest competitor's is 14.9). every second and every watt does count. yes, for the hoi polloi, it doesn't matter in an objective sense, but the question was asked.
But considering how many teams have to ADD weight to stay above the UCI limit, it makes me wonder if a steel bike couldn't still come in at the limit and be competitive. I don't buy that a couple of ounces really matters to a TdF racer (although it might psychologically), but if a steel frame can be built to the UCI limit, it's a moot question.

-Ray

[Elefantino]

Whatever works.

I was sad when Specialized discontinued its last steel model (mine) after '05. Their high-zoot carbon bikes just don't ride the same, according to my butt-o-meter. Their rep said steel was too expensive for the minimal return (presumably, because no one wanted mass-produced steel) and so Mr. Sinyard said nix.

As for weight, I check in at 17.57 pounds with a 61. I'm sure if I completely carbonized it and used tubulars and lighter wheels, I'd get it down to near-feather poundage.

[atmo]

Whatever works.

I was sad when Specialized discontinued its last steel model (mine) after '05. Their high-zoot carbon bikes just don't ride the same, according to my butt-o-meter. Their rep said steel was too expensive for the minimal return (presumably, because no one wanted mass-produced steel) and so Mr. Sinyard said nix.

As for weight, I check in at 17.57 pounds with a 61. I'm sure if I completely carbonized it and used tubulars and lighter wheels, I'd get it down to near-feather poundage.


next witness cheers bananas atmo...

[victoryfactory]

I have a 2002 Raleigh Professional made of a steel alloy. It weighs 21 lbs with pedals and all. I also have a 2005 Litespeed Gishallo it weighs a little over 16 lbs also with pedals and all. A 5 pound difference. Both have Campy Chorus components. I rode both on a 25 miles loop for time. No traffic interruptions, stop lights, stop signs, etc. The terrain has some elevation change but no real climbs at all, mostly flat. My time difference on the first trial was within 2 seconds. I rode on succesive days all out, going for the best time. I did several more and mixed the direction, looping clockwise then counter clockwise to compensate for wind differences. Overall the Litespeed for me had for me had a 1 second advantage. So if I were a professional racer then the $3,500 difference in cost would worth it to have a greater advantage for a winning time. How much is a 1 to 2 second advantage worth? Both frames take advantage of special shaping to create a certain feel and response. I must say though the fit for me of the Raleigh is better than the Litespeed. The Raleigh has a level TT while the Litespeed is an extreme compact shape. Availability and cost of material have a dramatic effect on production costs. I think the move to materials other than steel is driven more by the desire of consumers to go faster. Given that manufacturers will get a bigger profit margin because of the hype to go faster. So if the difference in the real production cost of one material over the other is small but one material gets all the hype, then because of cost manufacturers will move to that material.


And no doubt true.
But sometimes our brain and our lust and our desire to be (and feel)
cool get in the way of fact.

Atmo is right, getting away from steel makes sense from a marketing and
profit POV. It's nice to know that artists are still out there using that
technology for people who respect it. (and who can wait 2-3 years for
delivery)

What also seems to be happening is the last few higher capacity steel makers
(like Serotta) are all giving up on steel, leaving the boutique guys the only
game in town, ergo, the long wait for Sachs, Vanilla, Kirk, etc.
I'm glad I got my Serotta lugged steel before it was too late...

VF

[Steelhead]

I shop at a well known and large bike shop in the north dallas area. They have an impressive inventory of low to very high end bikes. That said, you would be hard pressed to find a steel tubed bicycle in there other than a few track/fixed gear bikes tucked in their own section. They could get you one...but the point is, that the many manufactures represented are using everything but steel. It appears the buying public has a lack of choices being delt to them. So by default, we take what they think we need (or like) or we go to small custom builders.

This is kind of an extention of the current thread about Boonan's bike/design. With an almost General Motors type attitude, the mega-makers are dictating to us what is "good" and not offering what we may really want. Fortunately, we have options and at price points that a lot of the mega-makers frames are charging. Good for us and bad for them.

BTW, the shop is top notch and was just using them as an example that is obviously widespread.

I was at that shop a few weeks ago as I had a business trip to Dallas for the day, and yes you are right. Not a steel bike to be seen, but lots of carbon and ti - lots of nice everything, but no steel. Maybe the Dallas mindset of flashiness for everything else applies to bikes as well?

[Steelhead]

I got on Wrench Science yesterday and chose a frame that I assumed was as close in weight to the CDA I have ordered, a Indy Fab Steel Crown Jewel - though my CDA has carbon steastay and the IF was all steel. Anyway that was as close as I could find on WS - and then I ran a build on it with exactly what I will be building my CDA with, all the way down to the tubes, spokes, etc... and the finished weight with pedals they calculated was 18.45. I'm happy with that.

[barry1021]

I have a 2002 Raleigh Professional made of a steel alloy. It weighs 21 lbs with pedals and all. I also have a 2005 Litespeed Gishallo it weighs a little over 16 lbs also with pedals and all. A 5 pound difference. Both have Campy Chorus components. I rode both on a 25 miles loop for time. No traffic interruptions, stop lights, stop signs, etc. The terrain has some elevation change but no real climbs at all, mostly flat. My time difference on the first trial was within 2 seconds. I rode on succesive days all out, going for the best time. I did several more and mixed the direction, looping clockwise then counter clockwise to compensate for wind differences. Overall the Litespeed for me had for me had a 1 second advantage. So if I were a professional racer then the $3,500 difference in cost would worth it to have a greater advantage for a winning time. How much is a 1 to 2 second advantage worth? Both frames take advantage of special shaping to create a certain feel and response. I must say though the fit for me of the Raleigh is better than the Litespeed. The Raleigh has a level TT while the Litespeed is an extreme compact shape. Availability and cost of material have a dramatic effect on production costs. I think the move to materials other than steel is driven more by the desire of consumers to go faster. Given that manufacturers will get a bigger profit margin because of the hype to go faster. So if the difference in the real production cost of one material over the other is small but one material gets all the hype, then because of cost manufacturers will move to that material.
especially when you have a renewed interest in cycling that brings new folks in to the market; they are more susceptible to a sales pitch

b21

(nine bikes-6 steel, 1 ti, 1 combo, 1 carbon)

[zap]

In todays market we have some beautiful custom steel frames being built. The weights can be equal to that of a Legend Ti or Ottott and like bikes. So I'm wondering why more folks don't buy and ride steel? Can one build a steel bike to be have that "snap", be race worthy and comfortable? In the 80's we only had those beautiful steel bikes and we were flying up the hills then, why not now? Seems to me a custom steel frame can actually be finer tuned in regards to tubing to match the riders weight and riding style than for example a ti/carbon mix, unsure. Just my thoughts :bike:

I still believe that for some riders such as my wife will get a better performing bike made for carefully selected steel tubing. Her custom 650c 47c-c Serotta rocks and the frame weighs a bit over 3 lbs. Ti or carbon frame would be closer to 2 lbs.

I on the other hand have yet to ride a premium steel frame that met my performance goals. I must admit that it's been 10 years since I last rode a premium steel bike, a Serotta CSI, and am sure that steel frames have improved since then. I would like to test a Peg Big Leg Emma or an atmo creation (this year, not in 5) to see if anything has changed.

[djg]

if you're in the TDF, it is a potential disadvantage (assuming your total bike weight is 15.9 and your nearest competitor's is 14.9). every second and every watt does count. yes, for the hoi polloi, it doesn't matter in an objective sense, but the question was asked.

Sure, I suppose, in the tdf, above tree line, not an extra pound on you, climbing to your threshold, against world class athletes climbing to theirs, you want to leave no stone unturned (and none in your pockets, either). At the same time, in mid-sized frames--say, 54-57 cm, you can get a steel frame that, with the right parts and wheels (and they can get the right parts and wheels, right?) will hit the weight limit. So then where do you go?

It's interesting when people talk about amateur racing that something like a CDA doesn't come up on short-lists say, all the time. I mean, I understand that when people are strapped for cash, and want new, and want it under 1500 bucks, then it's out. But, say, compared to 3 and 4 and 5 and, sheesh, 6 thousand dollar carbon frames, you can get a bike built properly around a custom 1,800 buck frame, just the way you want, with money left over for the parts and race wheels that will make it light, really (while still riding just the way it should). And for a couple hundred you get race protection?

[J.Greene]

I'm a lugged guy. I think it's a major disadvantage that that carbon, ti, alu, tubes can't be used with Newvex,Richieissimo,NuovoRichie,Pacenti etc..lugs. Once you drop lugs from the equation the bikes are all about the same in my book. It becomes about fit and geometry ONLY at that point. All that is ATMO

JG

[rePhil]

I switched from steel to Ti for all the wrong reasons, rust, corrosion and financial.
The last time I was in a LBS was Christmas to purchase a pair of sunglasses.
My frame lust is over and I would rather have time to ride rather than work to support my habit and buy more stuff.

[barry1021]

I have a 2002 Raleigh Professional made of a steel alloy. It weighs 21 lbs with pedals and all. I also have a 2005 Litespeed Gishallo it weighs a little over 16 lbs also with pedals and all. A 5 pound difference. Both have Campy Chorus components. I rode both on a 25 miles loop for time. No traffic interruptions, stop lights, stop signs, etc. The terrain has some elevation change but no real climbs at all, mostly flat. My time difference on the first trial was within 2 seconds. I rode on succesive days all out, going for the best time. I did several more and mixed the direction, looping clockwise then counter clockwise to compensate for wind differences. Overall the Litespeed for me had for me had a 1 second advantage. So if I were a professional racer then the $3,500 difference in cost would worth it to have a greater advantage for a winning time. How much is a 1 to 2 second advantage worth? Both frames take advantage of special shaping to create a certain feel and response. I must say though the fit for me of the Raleigh is better than the Litespeed. The Raleigh has a level TT while the Litespeed is an extreme compact shape. Availability and cost of material have a dramatic effect on production costs. I think the move to materials other than steel is driven more by the desire of consumers to go faster. Given that manufacturers will get a bigger profit margin because of the hype to go faster. So if the difference in the real production cost of one material over the other is small but one material gets all the hype, then because of cost manufacturers will move to that material.
especially when you have a renewed interest in cycling that brings new folks in to the market; they are more susceptible to a sales pitch

b21

(nine bikes-6 steel, 1 ti, 1 combo, 1 carbon)

[Erik.Lazdins]

Hypothetically speaking here - lets suppose pro cyclists could ride anything they wanted to - what would they choose?

I'm willing to bet Tom Boonen would not be on that Specialized and that most tour riders would not be on 14.99 lb frames but rather ones that were comfortable over the course of the seven or so hours prior to the final selection.

To finish first you must first finish and if your beat up by your bike then it doesn't matter what it weighs.

Each year that passes I still watch cycling whenever possible, but appreciate the April classics the most. The light bike isn't the distraction there - its about the sport, the mud, the rain etc.

[atmo]

Hypothetically speaking here - lets suppose pro cyclists could ride anything they wanted to - what would they choose?



therein lies the rub -
they are paid, salaried workers.
in essense, they have (and there is) no choice.

in my personal jesus moments, i fantasize about
larry bird in braggards, not hi top cons. ymmv.

atmo.

[dirtdigger88]

LesMiner-

but Im confused- yesterday some dude on a carbon fiber Scott- with EVERYTHING carbon fiber tried to take me in a town line sprint (I was on my heavy kirk with fenders no less)-

he lost-

so my experience tells me that my heavier :rolleyes: bike is faster

what gives-

Jason

[David Kirk]

Hypothetically speaking here - lets suppose pro cyclists could ride anything they wanted to - what would they choose?

I'm willing to bet Tom Boonen would not be on that Specialized and that most tour riders would not be on 14.99 lb frames but rather ones that were comfortable over the course of the seven or so hours prior to the final selection.

To finish first you must first finish and if your beat up by your bike then it doesn't matter what it weighs.

Each year that passes I still watch cycling whenever possible, but appreciate the April classics the most. The light bike isn't the distraction there - its about the sport, the mud, the rain etc.

Back when Serotta was supplying bikes to the Coors light guys they made a switch from supplying the team with steel bikes to Ti bikes. We were all very excited by our new Ti stuff and wanted the world to see what we could do. Most of the team liked the bikes but a few decided that they liked thier old steel bikes better.......despite the weight penalty. We only found out when the mechanic Eric told us there were new Ti bikes on top the team car while last years steel bikes were being ridden in the race. Serotta was cool with all this as they happily sold both steel and Ti but it did surprise us. Serotta wasn't in the position of one of the big 3 companies where they felt the rider needed to be riding a specific model for marketing purposes. They were actually naive enough to think that the rider knew best as to what worked best for them.

I love that company.

Dave

[David Kirk]

Here's a pet peeve of mine.

I hear all the time from folks who are worried about the weight of a steel bike will be too great because the last one they rode in the mid 90's weighed 21 lbs. Comparing this to current bike weights it's not a fair comparison.........certainly an apples and oranges deal. The big deal here is of course the weight of components and how much that has changed.

Look at the basic math - let's say you have a 21 lbs steel bike from 15 years ago and a 16lbs bike from today. Does anyone really think that the frame on the 21 lbs bike weighs 5 lbs more than the frame on the 16lbs bike and that the components don't factor into the equation? I hope not. that would mean that your old Raleigh Professional frame weighed about 9 lbs. I don't think so.

Looking at it another way - let's say you have a 17lbs bike and the frame weighs 3.5 lbs. The frame weight is only 20.5% of the total bike weight. The other 79% of the bike's weight is made up of all the other stuff. Where do you suppose you have the greatest opportunity to pull weight off the assembled package? I can see why focusing on frame would be the norm as it's simple and easy. But it's the 30 grams off the pedals, the 80 grams off the crank or the 100 grams off the shoes (had to get my light shoes plug in somewhere) that all add up to have a lighter package.

My overdone point is that with modern components most all bikes (regardless of frame material) can be built up in the 16 lbs range without much trouble.

My simple bike built up with a steel frame, fork and stem, clinchers with 25mm tires, Zinn boat anchor cranks, etc..... is a 62 x 61 and weighs a flat 18lbs. If I put light wheels and a carbon crank on it I could easily be in the high 16's. On a silly big bike like I ride but easy to do.

Funny stuff...at least to me.

Dave

[dirtdigger88]

I know Dave knows I was joking about my kirk being heavy

22lbs with fenders on- the fenders weight over three lbs themselves

now loose the brooks saddle and the cinelli bars- pull the xtr rear derailuer and cassette-

add carbon wheels- and tiny tires- well you get my point

besides- these 16 lb bikes are NEVER 61cms-

Jason

[edouard]

while trying to keep A.L. in sight, i loves climbing up to and sliding past other riders whilst i'm on my manet-issimo. dudes glance over and then down, and then back up and huff out queries about age, wgt, re-paint, retro et al...

once we had just stopped at a yard sale. i bought a NOS pair of wading boots for $5 ($150 gary borger boots), tied the laces together, yoked the shoes around my neck and A.L. and i proceeded on our way... after a couple miles with the boots hanging i decided to hide 'em in the woods and come pick em up later with a drive by. as we got going again, a large group finishing their coffee ride with a sprint up this hill comes up to us. in typical A.L. style, he gets right into the game. i slide to the back not knowing any of these geeks, and also thinking, "oh come on A.L. we gotta ride home still, another 40 miles, i ain't in the mood for this race *****..." so he goes off and chases, catches and rides to the finish sprint with some kid 1/2 his age. mean while all these colnago'd dudes start dying a thousand deaths, all looking down at their carbon trying to gather resources, see if their brakes are rubbing.

i tried to be good, stay put and enjoy the company, but the only thing i heard was whining. the redbike wouldn't stand for this. before i know it, it pulls out and to the left and starts chasing. it was like x-mas... the last thing i heard as i rode outta sight was "*****, that's steel. that guy's on an old steel bike!"

....sooo wish i had kept the boots hung over my neck.

[dirtdigger88]

I know Dave knows I was joking about my kirk being heavy

22lbs with fenders on- the fenders weigh over three lbs themselves

now loose the brooks saddle and the cinelli bars- pull the xtr rear derailuer and cassette-

add carbon wheels- and tiny tires- well you get my point

besides- these 16 lb bikes are NEVER 61cms-

Jason

[BigDaddySmooth]

Here is my HO,
My lugged 54 Della Santa frame weighs 1600 grams. I checked the weight of a Look 585 and it is a-d-v-e-r-t-i-z-e-d at 990 grams. The Look is 700 grams lighter but over twice the cost. Hmmm. I would prefer to lose the 1.25 pounds from around my belly and improve my thrust-to-weight ratio. But that's just me.

A buddy of mine new to road cycling bought a C-dale CAAD 7 w/DA. One day he rode over to show me his new bike and he arrived at my home wearing too small cycling shorts, a v-neck t-shirt that did a fine job of accentuating his portly midsection and black socks. After ROTFLMAO, he told me he was going to a bike shop to ask how much it would cost to shave another 0.5 pounds off his bike. He is a perfect example of buying the lightness hype.

I think the only people truly in the know ride lugged steel and sew-ups. Of course I'm kidding but I think most of your modern buyers, through effective marketing, believes weight is the end-all, be-all. :rolleyes:

[Steelhead]

I am soooo ready for my new steel serotta. :)

[weisan]

he lost-
Jason

'cos he's distracted...by the outta-world kirk.

[regularguy412]

It's one of the best I've read on here. D. Kirk, E. Lazdins, et. al., are exactly right. There's really no way to lose 5 lbs from a (modern) steel frame and still trust riding it. It's even difficult and expensive to lose 5 pounds from the various components on a bike. Conversely, I typically lose a net 5 to 6 pounds ( in fluids ) off my body every time I go on a long, hard ride. The good news is: buring-off the calories on my CSi makes me more fit. The weight loss ( over time ) improves my VO2 max _ AND_ my lugged, steel bike hasn't beat me up over those 50 or 60 miles.

Actually, it _IS_ about the bike, but not for the reasons most people think.

Mike in AR

PS -- Yep, I have a pair of Campy Victory Chrono tubular 32-hole rims laced to Ultegra Hubs w/ 14/15 butted spokes hanging in the basement -- Conti Comp GP 19mm glued up ( the old race wheels) :)

[sspielman]

While I have ridden a number of steel frames that I like alot, after very careful consideration, I have to say that my all time favorite steel is "George the Animal Steele"....

[catulle]

I would say that it could be that steel still has its limitations, whereas a ti, carbon or ti/carbon mix can give you a similar ride quality without the limitations of steel. Also, people want titanium and carbon just because it is titanium and carbon. Some cannot understand why people are buying custom steel bikes. I think that steel bikes is the way to go with racing, as well. Fine tune it to have that "snap", and you are on your way to the podium.

Pettit


Would you please elaborate what are the limitations of steel vis a vis the others, as per your first sentence? I don't get it. Thanks.

[Karin Kirk]

I have to say that my all time favorite steel is "George the Animal Steele"....

Gross! He needs to go visit the shaving thread!

[RPS]

Would you please elaborate what are the limitations of steel vis a vis the others, as per your first sentence? I don't get it. Thanks.I love steel, and have been riding my Schneider the most lately. And although I’m not a bike builder, I’ll share my 2 cents worth of nonsense nonetheless.

IMO the biggest disadvantage to steel versus other materials is weight-related -- as stated by others. And although newer hi-tech steels are much stronger than ever before, you can only save weight by decreasing the amount of the material; which means that in order to preserve a “functional” amount of torsional and lateral stiffness, the tubes must be made larger in diameter.

This causes a conundrum because while cutting down wall thickness to save weight, the tube diameter is increased to maintain stiffness. The result is that the pursuit of light weight can lead to very high diameter to wall-thickness ratios which are less than ideal. Other materials like titanium or aluminum have much lower densities, so a functionally stiff frame can be made at a lower weight without pushing the same limits.

Having said that, I think an extra pound or two “should not” make much difference to the vast majority of riders, but sadly it does.

[Grant McLean]

IMO the biggest disadvantage to steel versus other materials is weight-


I disagree, the biggest disadvantage steel has is it's image.
Since mtb's went mainstream, and tossed steel on the dust bin of history,
steel has got a bum rap as "old" , "low tech" and "yesterday's news".

Since this rationale is purely about fashion, and not it's funcion, the cycle will
repeat, and steel will be redisovered at some point. Just like Lacoste or Ray ban
aviator glasses, they go in and out of fashion, but never really out of style.

g

[Len J]

is to take a dump before I leave for the ride!

I always love this discussion........especially for the 90% of us that don't race.

I know a rider, always must have the lightest & greatest........spends a fortune being a weight weenie......but always shows up when I ride with him with an over-sized saddle bag, 2 extra tubes in his jersey, 2 extra large insulated bottles....you get the idea.

I love steel.

Merckx MXL...heavy steel but rides great
Kirk Steel Fixie, w fenders, canti's and OP's w 28's.....who cares about weight
Serotta 20th anniv w steel fork.......what a great ride.
2004 Ottrott...probably the heaviest they ever made...who cares?
2001 Lemond 853......

ATMO on the way.

I wish 1 or 2 lbs would make a difference in my riding......it would mean that I was competing at the highest levels.

Len

[soulspinner]

I have a 2002 Raleigh Professional made of a steel alloy. It weighs 21 lbs with pedals and all. I also have a 2005 Litespeed Gishallo it weighs a little over 16 lbs also with pedals and all. A 5 pound difference. Both have Campy Chorus components. I rode both on a 25 miles loop for time. No traffic interruptions, stop lights, stop signs, etc. The terrain has some elevation change but no real climbs at all, mostly flat. My time difference on the first trial was within 2 seconds. I rode on succesive days all out, going for the best time. I did several more and mixed the direction, looping clockwise then counter clockwise to compensate for wind differences. Overall the Litespeed for me had for me had a 1 second advantage. So if I were a professional racer then the $3,500 difference in cost would worth it to have a greater advantage for a winning time. How much is a 1 to 2 second advantage worth? Both frames take advantage of special shaping to create a certain feel and response. I must say though the fit for me of the Raleigh is better than the Litespeed. The Raleigh has a level TT while the Litespeed is an extreme compact shape. Availability and cost of material have a dramatic effect on production costs. I think the move to materials other than steel is driven more by the desire of consumers to go faster. Given that manufacturers will get a bigger profit margin because of the hype to go faster. So if the difference in the real production cost of one material over the other is small but one material gets all the hype, then because of cost manufacturers will move to that material.
In 25 miles your time would vary due to your own good or bad day more than 1 second. Ride more, eat less and you will have more impact. Im hungry...

[atmo]

... and steel will be redisovered at some point.
sweet -

[Grant McLean]

sweet -

indeed.

g

[atmo]

indeed.

g
boys of summer atmo -

[RPS]

I disagree, the biggest disadvantage steel has is it's image.
Since mtb's went mainstream, and tossed steel on the dust bin of history,
steel has got a bum rap as "old" , "low tech" and "yesterday's news".

Since this rationale is purely about fashion, and not it's funcion, the cycle will
repeat, and steel will be redisovered at some point. Just like Lacoste or Ray ban
aviator glasses, they go in and out of fashion, but never really out of style.

gGrant, isn't the negative image based largely on weight? If you could make a 1-pound steel frame it would put other materials out of business IMO.

Relative weight on an MTB is more important than on a road bike, hence why the demise of steel there first. Just my opinion.

[atmo]

Grant, isn't the negative image based largely on weight? If you could make a 1-pound steel frame it would put other materials out of business IMO.

Relative weight on an MTB is more important than on a road bike, hence why the demise of steel there first. Just my opinion.
cliffnotes -
it was the down-and-outers from the mtb era that,
in their last gasp for air, decided to take a chance
by diversifying into the road market, something they
knew nothing about, that set some of this into action.
they took their nonferrous baggage and their forks-R-us
mentality, and the road segment hasn't been the same
since atmo. hey - no bigee. those of us in the margins
survive. what's lost (if lost is really even the correct
word) is that the demand for steel, the material, has
a ripple effect far past the orignal reasons it's not used
in the first place atmo. iow, when the big guys cease buying
it for production work, the little guys have less of a menu
to feed off of. howard beele moment.

[LesMiner]

In 25 miles your time would vary due to your own good or bad day more than 1 second. Ride more, eat less and you will have more impact. Im hungry...

The time difference is close but I think the point is weight of the bike made of whatever material does not matter near as much as the ability of the person that rides it.

[Grant McLean]

Grant, isn't the negative image based largely on weight? If you could make a 1-pound steel frame it would put other materials out of business IMO.

Relative weight on an MTB is more important than on a road bike, hence why the demise of steel there first. Just my opinion.

Maybe, but i don't think so.

Just about every aluminum frame sold in the early 90's in our shop was
actually heavier than a Ritchey P-23 or other nice handbuilt steel bike.
Suspension forks are heavier than rigid forks, rear suspension is heavier
than hardtails, disc brakes are heavier than v-brakes, rapid fire shifters
are heavier than thumbshifters, so it can't be just about weight, right?

For all the marketing about weight, there are obviously other things that
trump weight as a feature. Usually, in order to be successful, you need
to be able to point to that feature, and say: look, see, it has "x" new feature.
Invisible things like butting, new alloys, and lack of gizmos are a tough sell.

Visual things like carbon fiber weave and funny spoke pattern wheels are easy to sell.

IHMO.

g

[dash]

...when the big guys cease buying
it for production work, the little guys have less of a menu
to feed off of...


and your offering becomes more exclusive - ergo, five years ;)

[LesMiner]

LesMiner-

but Im confused- yesterday some dude on a carbon fiber Scott- with EVERYTHING carbon fiber tried to take me in a town line sprint (I was on my heavy kirk with fenders no less)-

he lost-

so my experience tells me that my heavier :rolleyes: bike is faster

what gives-

Jason

Maybe not so confused. You should have stopped the guy on the Scott, traded bikes then raced to see who was faster? Would you win?

[flydhest]

Maybe not so confused. You should have stopped the guy on the Scott, traded bikes then raced to see who was faster? Would you win?

Yeah, but you could ride faster if someone else was riding your Kirk trying to get away from you, too.

[BumpyintheBurgh]

I've been through the 'weight matters' phase. Had a perfectly good high end steel bike but went out and spent a ton of money on new carbon and Ti bikes and all the latest lite weight components. Never tried to time myself to see if it made any difference. Went on a diet, lost 20 lbs. Now it doesn't matter what my bike weighs. Now I can get up those hills more easily with any bike that I ride. Hey, if you're not a pro, don't have money on-the-line, or not trying out for the Olympics, what are a few seconds or pounds. The faster you go, the less time you have to enjoy being on your bike. Steel is still my favorite.

[I Want Sachs?]

I think steel does have the disadvantage of being heavier with all things being equal. Yes, it is true that given the inherent property of steel, a similarly durable and performing bicycle will be heavier in steel.

Face it, all of us would prefer to ride a lighter bike if everything else can be kept the same. That is why I do not have a kickstand on my bike, and I will not put one on Richard Sachs if I get one. True, the slight weight (0.5 to 1.5 lbs) difference might not be detectable or relevant to a particular type of riding. However if the ride characteristics can be kept exactly the same, why would I not want a lighter bike?

What gets everyone upset is that we feel the material of Steel has merits in other area such as snap/liveliness/comfort/lug beauty etc. However, we should not get offended when someone makes a statement that steel is heavier in the inherent property.

However, as I understand, the most important aspect is in the design of the bike; not in the material. If I get what ATMO is saying, so in the hand of competent carbon frame makers such as Parlee or competent Titanium frame makers such as Tom Kellog, we can probably get a bike that rides exactly like a steel Sachs, but only 0.5-1 pound lighter than the Sachs after the bicycle is build up with exactly the same components. If that's what turn you on, then get the lighter bike. For me, I am vain, so I like the beauty of lugs, and I would prefer pretty bikes over 1 pound weight saving. Each one of us will have to make that decision for ourselves. But steel's disadvantage is the weight.

Now if I can only afford to have ATMO build me a disadvantaged bike. ;)

[palincss]

I have a 2002 Raleigh Professional made of a steel alloy. It weighs 21 lbs with pedals and all. I also have a 2005 Litespeed Gishallo it weighs a little over 16 lbs also with pedals and all. A 5 pound difference. Both have Campy Chorus components. I rode both on a 25 miles loop for time. No traffic interruptions, stop lights, stop signs, etc. The terrain has some elevation change but no real climbs at all, mostly flat. My time difference on the first trial was within 2 seconds. I rode on succesive days all out, going for the best time. I did several more and mixed the direction, looping clockwise then counter clockwise to compensate for wind differences. Overall the Litespeed for me had for me had a 1 second advantage. So if I were a professional racer then the $3,500 difference in cost would worth it to have a greater advantage for a winning time. How much is a 1 to 2 second advantage worth?

And since the percentage of cyclists who actually race (at all, never mind professionally) has got to be down in the single digits, what is that 1-2 second "advantage" to the overwhelming majority of the market?

Besides, you could save a lot more time than that with the right choice of tires, atmo.

[atmo]

Each one of us will have to make that decision for ourselves. But steel's disadvantage is the weight.

Now if I can only afford to have ATMO build me a disadvantaged bike. ;)
the weighting is the hardest part atmo.

[michael white]

everytime I go to the framebuilders' forum, I look to see if there's anything interesting in the ti/car/alu corners, but there's not. Funny that the out-of-style stuff is all anyone ever talks about . . .

[atmo]

everytime I go to the framebuilders' forum, I look to see if there's anything interesting in the ti/car/alu corners, but there's not. Funny that the out-of-style stuff is all anyone ever talks about . . .
yippie atmo -

http://www.mindmined.com/library-images/abbie_hoffman_steal_this_book.jpg

[saab2000]

The last pro race I rode was on a steel bike. I lost the race. (That implies that I got 2nd or something else close though. Nothing could be further from the truth! :D But by not winning, I guess I lost.)

Must have been the bike.

Steel bikes kick a$$ and that's really all I have to say about it.

I want a level top tube steel Serotta, size 57 race geo with an F3 fork. Painted just like my CIII.

[rounder]

i just built up a ciii that i bought on ebay (first thing i ever bought there). i love it plus you can put magnetic alerts...don't forget the water bottle and garage door

[dash]

the weighting is the hardest part atmo.


so, if weight is the only real objection with steel, why doesn't everyone lighten up the great ride of steel with a carbon fork as with http://www.serotta.com/pages/cda.html to minimize the "weight penalty" - then, why are there titanium bikes at all?

[djg]

yippie atmo -

http://www.mindmined.com/library-images/abbie_hoffman_steal_this_book.jpg

Abbie lived underground ... but he loved NY ATMO.

[Climb01742]

i'd bet a lot of races could be won on a marcelo.

[Larry]

so, if weight is the only real objection with steel, why doesn't everyone lighten up the great ride of steel with a carbon fork as with http://www.serotta.com/pages/cda.html to minimize the "weight penalty" - then, why are there titanium bikes at all?

"Why are there titanium bikes at all?"
Great question!
They are expensive. That makes them better for folks with lots of green.
I think that one day they will go away. It's just not my look.

Steel makes sense......lugged or tig-welded.

[1centaur]

IMO, Parlee CAN'T make a bike that rides just like a Sachs because carbon fiber transmits bumps differently from steel.

The comment about the 1 pound steel frame was interesting, and I agree - if steel were the lightest material, a lot of people would buy that whatever the ride quality. I never understand why these steel loving threads have so many comments about racing and a second here or there. Most buyers know they won't race, so that's really not part of the equation. Lighter bikes are about muscle fatigue and the sensation of getting up to speed quickly or getting over a hill more easily. Those slight time differences over 40 km everyone cites assume the rider is a robot, not some 42 year old weekend warrior who gets to the top of hillock more easily than his legs remember but perhaps with a little more aerobic input as hig leg sensations excited his brain to up the cadence, who then pauses and rolls down the other side feeling good about what just happened. That's the experience people are buying. Sure if you have a great engine you don't care as much, but most don't have the great engine and certainly don't want to train methodically to get there - they are out to have fun (and yes, part of the fun is the cool, pro, factor). Steel bikes all else equal are heavier than carbon or aluminum and provide a less damped ride than a well engineered CF bike - CF wins on fun and feeling, not on seconds gained.

Dave Kirk's contention on weight underlies many of the comments on this thread - the feeling that steel rides great so a weight that's close enough is really what counts. My opinion is that steel does not ride like carbon fiber, it rides worse. Metallic thumps to me are less pleasant that carbon fiber thumps. I in fact do believe that CF allows vertical compliance but efficient bottom brackets with the bonus of doing so at a low weight, whereas very light steel and Ti are likely to have more flex than equal weight CF, and equal weight alu is likely to feel harsher. I also don't believe that the mass market is inherently irrational, which is what these threads always imply. I think Tom grew up riding steel, tried carbon, noticed and liked the difference, who told ****, who agreed, who told Harry, etc. Sure marketing and looks (big diameter tubes vs. skinny ones) had an effect, as did Lance's weight weenieism, but, when CF started appearing in showrooms, if buyers did not like what they were getting the wave would have slowed or stopped. The one pity is that there are clearly people who actually like the ride of steel better (90% of the readers of this forum), but they will increasingly be only those who grew up riding it (as I did); new generations will not experience the full materials palette to make their decisions because the stores will mostly only have CF and alu bikes.

To each his own, but mass delusion is always an unlikely answer.

[BdaGhisallo]

One thing that I never see come up in these discussions about new steel frames are tube dimensions. I don't know about other folk, but over the last ten years, I have come to like the look of an aluminum frame with the larger diameter tubes. Not the huge Cannondale-like downtube that Cannondale tried a few CAAD iterations ago, but the 38 to 40mm downtubes and 35 mm top and seat tubes. I like that look. It looks solid and stout. Whenever I think steel, I think 1" top tubes and 1 1/8" down tubes and they seem downright wimpy looking compared to what we have become used to.

Now I don't know what new steel tubing dimensions are these days. Is it comparable to aluminum? Is there a standard diameter for the new steel frame tubes like there was in the old days?

Steel is magic, but so much for me is the look of the bike, and I like the look of aluminum.

Geoff

[edouard]

NASA says a steel space shuttle disappears underneath 'em

[saab2000]

NASA says a steel space shuttle disappears underneath 'em

Stiff, yet compliant huh? Corners like on rails I bet.

[catulle]

yippie atmo -

http://www.mindmined.com/library-images/abbie_hoffman_steal_this_book.jpg


Now we're talking, atmo...!!

[CNote]

To each his own, but mass delusion is always an unlikely answer.

I disagree. Religion and politics are two fine examples. Mass-marketing another.

[dbrk]

One thing that I never see come up in these discussions about new steel frames are tube dimensions. snip...
Steel is magic, but so much for me is the look of the bike, and I like the look of aluminum.
Geoff

Interesting. I've gone the other way. My last few bikes have 1" top tubes and commensurate "old fashioned" diameters and I much prefer that look. We light what we are used to. I think I've never gotten used to the way modern race bikes look. 'Don't think I ever will though never is a long time.

dbrk

[Larry]

[QUOTE=1centaur]IMO, Parlee CAN'T make a bike that rides just like a Sachs because carbon fiber transmits bumps differently from steel.

The comment about the 1 pound steel frame was interesting, and I agree - if steel were the lightest material, a lot of people would buy that whatever the ride quality. I never understand why these steel loving threads have so many comments about racing and a second here or there. Most buyers know they won't race, so that's really not part of the equation. Lighter bikes are about muscle fatigue and the sensation of getting up to speed quickly or getting over a hill more easily. Those slight time differences over 40 km everyone cites assume the rider is a robot, not some 42 year old weekend warrior who gets to the top of hillock more easily than his legs remember but perhaps with a little more aerobic input as hig leg sensations excited his brain to up the cadence, who then pauses and rolls down the other side feeling good about what just happened. That's the experience people are buying. Sure if you have a great engine you don't care as much, but most don't have the great engine and certainly don't want to train methodically to get there - they are out to have fun (and yes, part of the fun is the cool, pro, factor). Steel bikes all else equal are heavier than carbon or aluminum and provide a less damped ride than a well engineered CF bike - CF wins on fun and feeling, not on seconds gained.

Dave Kirk's contention on weight underlies many of the comments on this thread - the feeling that steel rides great so a weight that's close enough is really what counts. My opinion is that steel does not ride like carbon fiber, it rides worse. Metallic thumps to me are less pleasant that carbon fiber thumps. I in fact do believe that CF allows vertical compliance but efficient bottom brackets with the bonus of doing so at a low weight, whereas very light steel and Ti are likely to have more flex than equal weight CF, and equal weight alu is likely to feel harsher. I also don't believe that the mass market is inherently irrational, which is what these threads always imply. I think Tom grew up riding steel, tried carbon, noticed and liked the difference, who told ****, who agreed, who told Harry, etc. Sure marketing and looks (big diameter tubes vs. skinny ones) had an effect, as did Lance's weight weenieism, but, when CF started appearing in showrooms, if buyers did not like what they were getting the wave would have slowed or stopped. The one pity is that there are clearly people who actually like the ride of steel better (90% of the readers of this forum), but they will increasingly be only those who grew up riding it (as I did); new generations will not experience the full materials palette to make their decisions because the stores will mostly only have CF and alu bikes.

To each his own, but mass delusion is always an unlikely answer.[/QUO

Individual frame fit and fabrication are more important than any material.
Ti, carbon, steel....in the hands of a master builder any of these can be
built to make a nice ride.
I never ever liked the dead feel of carbon based on experiences with
Trek or Specialized. The high-end stuff must be better.....sure hope so.
Ti is fine.
Custom-fitted steel is for real, and if it seems to ride rough, lower the tire pressure, change to a wider tire, or reevaluate what you really want.
Sure, you can spend a bundle on really expensive carbon. But, you will trade it in every few years also. This is my observation at the LBS.

Custom steel, in the hands of a master, makes sense.
CDA.....best bang for the buck. It wiill stay with you for a long time.....
not three years......more like ten or twenty years.

[catulle]

I posted a few days ago about a friend's impression when he rode my Kirk. He would take his Pinarello carbon bicycle next to him, and place his right foot on what would be the left pedal. Then he'd push the bicycle away from him a little and press on the pedal. You could certainly see the bb corner flexing away from him. When doing the same thing to the Kirk, there would be no such movement.

My friend, who is a serious rider/competitor (several times national champion) and who rides and competes a month of every year in northern Italy, was amazed at how stiff the bottom bracket on the Kirk was, and at the same time how comfortable the bicycle felt from the saddle. He is one who doesn't care much for a pound more or less. And unless you're riding the TdF, I don't think there is one pro who minds a pound more or less if he gets a better ride.

I do believe that, all things being equal (in terms of sensible geometry), steel makes a better frame than any other material. Better meaning a more compliant ride at the saddle, yet a more responsive bike when stepped on the pedals.

[93legendti]

Random postings from the experts on frame material:
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=28266&postcount=16
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=139483&postcount=49
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=185069&postcount=58
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=185067&postcount=56
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=139474&postcount=45

[rounder]

I have an old (92) steel serotta nhx that i have been riding solely for 15 years. i think it still looks and rides great and i never worried once whether it was gonna break/fail on me at some point during the next five years or less. i also think its really great that custom bike builders still use steel to make their new stuff that others drool over and are willing to wait patiently for.

rounder

[dreadpiratetim]

Truly curious:

Why is it that there have been no comments about the CdA with carbon seat stays? (http://www.serotta.com/pages/cda.html) Along the same line, where do carbon forks fit into the equation?

Now just having fun:

If you want Campy then both Record and Chorus give you a full dose of carbon cranks, brake levers and seatpost. I guess you could opt for Centaur or Veloce, or e-Bay for NOS Campy, since weight isn't the issue. Or do all steel lovers go Specialties TA and Nitto? Or, heaven forbid, Shimano?

Thanks!

[Big Dan]

Truly curious:

Why is it that there have been no comments about the CdA with carbon seat stays? (http://www.serotta.com/pages/cda.html) Along the same line, where do carbon forks fit into the equation?

Now just having fun:

If you want Campy then both Record and Chorus give you a full dose of carbon cranks, brake levers and seatpost. I guess you could opt for Centaur or Veloce, or e-Bay for NOS Campy, since weight isn't the issue. Or do all steel lovers go Specialties TA and Nitto? Or, heaven forbid, Shimano?

Thanks!

Here you go bud, one of my bikes. No carbon, no Campy and crazy fast.
Any problems?

[RPS]

I look at this steel thing a lot different than most of you guys. In part it’s because I distinguish more between lateral and vertical stiffness than most of you (I think?).

The bottom line is that carbon fiber gives more than steel in compression for a given amount of bending stiffness, which normally leads to a softer and smoother ride.

IMHO, if we want a steel frame to be as smooth as carbon, we have to place the steel in bending, not compression -- regardless of how it’s done. Steel tubes in pure compression don’t give enough to make any significant difference. To continue doing the same and expect different results is pointless. The only thing that will come from it is a lot of this:
:crap: :crap: :crap: :crap:

Forget compression and try bending. It can make a huge difference without efficiency or weight penalties.

[sg8357]

Now just having fun:

If you want Campy then both Record and Chorus give you a full dose of carbon cranks, brake levers and seatpost. I guess you could opt for Centaur or Veloce, or e-Bay for NOS Campy, since weight isn't the issue. Or do all steel lovers go Specialties TA and Nitto? Or, heaven forbid, Shimano?

Thanks!

If weight is the issue, use Simplex, modern stuff is tank like in comparison.

I'm not a steel lover per se, it's just all the bikes I really want are made by people who work only in steel, DP being the exception.
For instance if Dave Kirk decides to build a Hetchins tribute in ti/cf, Think ti lugs carved in the Magnum Bonum pattern, outrageous.
I'd be buying my first ti/cf bike.

Scott G.

[Larry]

Here you go bud, one of my bikes. No carbon, no Campy and crazy fast.
Any problems?
Very cool.
I'll bet the fit is perfect.

[Polyglot]

I think most of your modern buyers, through effective marketing, believes weight is the end-all, be-all. :rolleyes:

There is good reason for this. Your average bike buyer cannot possibly be overly knowledgeable about bikes, because most people simply do not have the opportunity to try out many bikes. Most start off with a less than great bike to start off and any bike purchased thereafter is likely better, either due to better relative quality of the components or overall market progress. For those lucky few that start off with a top-notch bike, the subsequent bike is usually purchased because they are 'tired' of their initial bike or because it has been stolen or is 'worn out'. A new bike is therefore guaranteed to be deemed an improvement.

Besides which, when a potential buyer goes into a store, they invariably are embarassed to admit they know nothing, so they do what they can to appear somewhat knowledgeable. They look for the buzz components du jour. They also lift up a bike, as any ignoramus can judge relative weight of two or more bikes that they are considering. For decades, weight was the dummies' simple way of telling the difference between good and better in cycling. Beyond componentry and weight, the only remaining possibility is to look towards what the pros ride.

I have often found pleasure pointing out to weight weenies that Coppi's tour winning Bianchi of the early 50's weighed less than Indurain's Pinarello...

[vaxn8r]

There is good reason for this. Your average bike buyer cannot possibly be overly knowledgeable about bikes, because most people simply do not have the opportunity to try out many bikes. Most start off with a less than great bike to start off and any bike purchased thereafter is likely better, either due to better relative quality of the components or overall market progress. For those lucky few that start off with a top-notch bike, the subsequent bike is usually purchased because they are 'tired' of their initial bike or because it has been stolen or is 'worn out'. A new bike is therefore guaranteed to be deemed an improvement.

Besides which, when a potential buyer goes into a store, they invariably are embarassed to admit they know nothing, so they do what they can to appear somewhat knowledgeable. They look for the buzz components du jour. They also lift up a bike, as any ignoramus can judge relative weight of two or more bikes that they are considering. For decades, weight was the dummies' simple way of telling the difference between good and better in cycling. Beyond componentry and weight, the only remaining possibility is to look towards what the pros ride.

I have often found pleasure pointing out to weight weenies that Coppi's tour winning Bianchi of the early 50's weighed less than Indurain's Pinarello...
I think you're on to something. +1