New Steel vs Old Steel

[TC Johnson]

I have been curious of late about the difference in ride or performance between new and old steels. For example, what advantage would the steel we see in vintage frames, such as Columbus SL,SLX,etc, or Tange Prestige, have versus some of the new steels out there like Columbus Thron, Zona, or the pipes Sr. Pegoretti and others are using?

I know there will be diferences in weights, but that aside, what else is there to consider?

Perhaps some of the frame builders who still frequent this forum could also weigh in.

Thanks

TC

[Tobias]

For the most part steel is still steel as a material, just stronger. What has changed are manufacturing capabilities that allow larger diameter with thinner walls, and greater ability to control variations in wall thicknesses. Continuous butting for example.

[merckx]

I think that it is impossible to compare the performance of various steel tube sets when the tubing diameter has changed significantly. The diameter of the current steel tube sets dramatically changes the ride of modern steel machines. How can you compare the metallurgy when factoring physics into the equation?

[TC Johnson]

Merckx, how have you found the ride to change between the eras? Softer? Less compliant? Stiffer?

TC

[merckx]

Merckx, how have you found the ride to change between the eras? Softer? Less compliant? Stiffer?

TC

I've had a Peg Marcelo that was a rocket. It was very direct and squirted forward with every pedal stroke. It was made from very large pipes. I think what gave it pep was the design and over-sized tubing used. If it was made from Columbus SL and in the same tubing diameters that Pegoretti uses in the Marcelo, and with the same design, it would ride exactly the same as it does with its current Columbus Spirit tubing. Strength is another matter all together.

[Charles M]

Firstly not all steel has changed... New stuff can be same as the old stuff and that's not a bad thing. It's great that guys building fantastic product have access to the things that they are familiar with AS WELL AS new things to use.

The biggest change in steel is a lot like the change in most products. Fatter tubes and thinner walls can make for things more available combinations of ride quality and stiffness and weight...


Saying "new steel is stiffer" or lighter or this or that is the same generalized BS as gets generalized with Ti and Carb and Alu... The manipulation of steel has increased the avaiable character and look.


The bottom line is the range of product is larger as relates to performance and the classics are still classics.

[RPS]

I know there will be diferences in weights, but that aside, what else is there to consider?
That the modulus of elasticity (flexibility or stiffness) is essentially the same.
To make a meaningful change the tubing geometry must change.

[Pete Serotta]

Firstly not all steel has changed... New stuff can be same as the old stuff and that's not a bad thing. It's great that guys building fantastic product have access to the things that they are familiar with AS WELL AS new things to use.

The biggest change in steel is a lot like the change in most products. Fatter tubes and thinner walls can make for things more available combinations of ride quality and stiffness and weight...


Saying "new steel is stiffer" or lighter or this or that is the same generalized BS as gets generalized with Ti and Carb and Alu... The manipulation of steel has increased the avaiable character and look.


The bottom line is the range of product is larger as relates to performance and the classics are still classics. :banana: :banana: :banana:

[dd74]

I tend to like a heavier steel - like SL, and traditional geometry (no sloping top tube). I had a Columbus Spirit frame with carbon stays and a sloping top tube. It had a horrific ride and was not much faster than my '85 Colnago SL tubed.

In fact, the Colnago descends faster (probably because it's heavier), feels more stable in cornering and sprints almost as quickly.

As someone mentioned, I believe it's more about geometry than tube-size and thickness. Steel is steel, wonderful as it is.

[TC Johnson]

If there is a measure of agreement that steel in and of itself is not the factor, comments so far seem to suggest that the geometry (and perhaps joining method?) could be the greater influence. Compact/sloping frames have generally been considered stiffer, as I recall, but is this at the cost of riding comfort or stability?

To bend the thread slightly, what preferences have you developed in terms of geometry and performance, again thinking steel? To limit the variance in the discussion, performance/race frames is what I have in mind, not long distance touring or commuter bikes.

TC

[Tobias]

Compact/sloping frames have generally been considered stiffer, as I recall, but is this at the cost of riding comfort or stability?

No. Compact in theory makes a frame ever so slightly stiffer in torsion and ever so slightly higher in lateral stiffness when measured at the bottom bracket, but also (again in theory) makes the frame ever so slightly more comfortable due to additional vertical compliance.

If that doesn't make complete sense join the group.

[WadePatton]

That the modulus of elasticity (flexibility or stiffness) is essentially the same.
To make a meaningful change the tubing geometry must change.
oh, clearly you missed the latest memo from the marketing department. :crap: :fight: ;)

[sokyroadie]

I HAD a 2006 Serotta CDA Steel frame made from the greatest "new" steel it weighed 1669g frame only.

I HAVE a mid 80's Keith Lippy made from ??? "old" steel it weighs 1680g frame only.

The Lippy rides better hence the HAD. I realize that there is more to it than weight but both fit equally well.

Jeff

[staggerwing]

That the modulus of elasticity (flexibility or stiffness) is essentially the same.
To make a meaningful change the tubing geometry must change.

Putting on my engineer hat, let me expand on this thought.

Take any 10 steels that you care to choose, and have an identical tube drawn up in each. Makes no difference as to actual geometry, butting, or otherwise, as long as they are identical geometrically. Then, take these same tubes, mount the rigidly at one end, and hang a significant weight off of the other end. Every last one of them will deflect the exact same amount.

Having a steel with a higher "yield" strength simply means you can hang a heavier weight off of the end, taking your structure to a higher level of deformation, before a permanent (ie "plastic") deformation will take place.

With a higher strength steel, you can also thin the walls a bit, which will make for a more flexible structure, but the flexibility of the material itself, is the same. However, wall stress is proportional to moment of inertia, which is proportional to tube radius to the forth power (ie: r^4). In short, relatively small differences in wall thickness and tube diameter can yield entirely different results.

As a tech head, with an experimental background, it would be an interesting exercise to put a few strain gages, in strategic locations, both of frames that have appealed and those I've felt indifferent towards.

To wit, for my daily commuter, I recently switched from a Surly Pacer to a Gunnar Crosshairs. Sure, there are some minor geometry differences, but they are both TIGed steel, and setup almost identically, and with the same wheelset. The Pacer has always felt a bit "wooden", even laden with my borderline clyde body, and an extra 15lbs of junk. Almost like driving a lightly loaded, oversprung truck, it . On the other hand, the Gunnar feels positively supple, tracking through rough corners as if etching lines in the pavement. I'm sure, there is more deformation happening in the Gunnar as I ride it, but the question is where. I'm guessing 75% of the difference is in the fork, but short of crossing the Gunnar fork to the Pacer, I'm not going to know. Perhaps some things are better left untested.

[Hawker]

I found this interview with Richard Schwinn by Georgena Terry to very insightful regarding new steel.

http://www.terrybicycles.com/podcast/page/2 (Scroll down)

[martinrjensen]

OK, are you (somebody) saying that it's only building differences and geometry that make a difference in ride feel?
My question is, if steel type makes absolutely no difference in the ride, why do the bike manufacturers use so many different flavors of steels in their models? I will agree that some of it is just marketing, but I have a hard time believing it's all marketing.
In fact that old 1996 Mondinico test among (7?) identically built but different composition frames did point out that there were noticeable differences in in steel type. it would have been interesting i they took that test a little further. As such they really didn't go far enough in quantifying the differences.

[avalonracing]

Old steel has more rust. :D

[staggerwing]

OK, are you (somebody) saying that it's only building differences and geometry that make a difference in ride feel?

Depends on how you phrase the details.

Say you built two identical cycles, one of common 4130, and another out of some fancy, high strength steel. If you kept 100% of the geometries identical, including diameter of the tubing, butt locations and wall thickness, as well as, frame angles, tube lengths and joining details, then they should ride identically.

On the other hand, the higher strength steel will allow you to use less of it, which will result in a frame with a greater compliance, or deformation for a given load, without inducing a permanent change in material shape. The higher strength steel can take a higher deformation, which is directly related to stress, before deforming plastically, or failing altogether.

[buck-50]

I'm in the process of having a custom built. It's part old-stock reynolds 531, part Dedacciai.

I asked the builder about the old 531- was it better or worse or what? his reply was that the big thing for him is that it's more consistent, and that it comes in shapes they don't make anymore- chainstays are rounder, visually skinnier, fork blades can be gotten in imperial dimensions, etc.

So, half my bike will be 531, the other half, much lighter Dedacciai.

I'll let you know which half rides better.

[TC Johnson]

So, faced with the prospect that you can choose between two frames of comparable quality and condition (assume used), and price, would you select the frame in classic tubage or one of the newer steels? The paint job is not a deciding factor.

I hesitate to name options, but let's hear this group's thoughts.

TC

[John M]

The newer steel will be lighter for the reasons mentioned, but the differences in ride will be more dependent on the build details. The weight difference is likely to be less than a pound for the frame, unless the choices are Life/Spirit vs. Max (or some similar comparison), in which the differences could be 2 pounds.

I would look more at how the geo, tube diameters, butting, etc... affect ride than on the old vs new tubing issue.

My sense is that at the bottom line it comes down to an emotional choice. Intellectualizing or rationalizing is probably an attempt to justify an emotional preference for something that should be objectively inferior. These are all quality bikes, with way more capability than most of us can ever exhaust. I'd say choose the bike that makes you smile more and more excited to ride it. I've had some objectively great bikes that didn't move me. Others that should not be so great that I just loved (e.g. my old 1987 Vitus 979--maybe the Stephen Roche aspect of it).

[Lifelover]

I'm not a frame builder but according to the greatest frame builder of all time, new steel just allows them to make the frame lighter.

So sayeth the MAN! (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=132502&postcount=13)

I have also heard that the next generation of steel can be ordered with the Gestalt built into it.

[maddog17]

So, faced with the prospect that you can choose between two frames of comparable quality and condition (assume used), and price, would you select the frame in classic tubage or one of the newer steels?


interesting...... but how far back are we going for classic tubage? i only ask because i don't think that SL or SLX can be tig'ed. so would asthetics come into play here? does someone try to pick between a Tig'ed frame (say Spirit or 853) and one that can be built with some beautiful lugs? (EL-OS or MX) lugs would add to the weight, but will they affect ride characteristics?

[dannyg1]

I'm not the expert when it comes to the mechanical characteristics that make the 'new' steel's different but I can say that stainess steel is more like a tightly wound spring than other steels I've ridden. The new steel bikes (Colombus Life/Spirit mix, Genius and Neuron) I have ride more like the stainless bikes I have and the older frames I have do seem closer to each other in ride character, I'm thinking.

[rounder]

I have two steel Serottas. One is a 1991 nhx built with Columus SLX that i rode for about 15 years and the other is a 2006 CIII with Columbus niobium that i rode for three years. The old bike has straight tubes and a steel fork while the newer bike has tapered tubes with a carbon fork and probably weighs about three lbs less. Both bikes have basically the same components. My average speed is about the same on both bikes (probably because i am the limiting factor), but the newer bike feels faster and is more confidence inspiring going down hills and around corners. I believe it is due to lower weight, carbon fork and more modern design.

[Peter B]

The elastic modulus of steel, old and new, has not changed; it is the defining property of the material. What the newer steels offer is greater yield strength. In practical terms that means the steel can be drawn into thinner-walled, lighter tubes. There are, however, realistic limitations to wall thickness related to dent resistance and the ability to join the tubes together.

As wall thickness is reduced, tube diameter must be increased to maintain desired stiffness. Since stiffness increases exponentially as diameter is increased, new steel alloys allow tube dimensions that can result in frames that provide a desired set of characteristics at a lighter weight that alloys of old. Specific butting profiles and alloy characteristics such as air-hardening allow the thinner tubing to be joined reliably.

What all this means is that a skilled, knowledgeable builder has a 'bigger toolbox', that is, more options at their disposal. He/she can apply the metallurgical advancements to designing a frame that meets a given set of user requirements at an overall lighter weight.

[Peter P.]

The older steels, Columbus SL, Reynolds 531, Tange #2 and the like typically are built into frames using the 1" "standard" diameter tubing.

The newer steels, like Columbus Zona and Reynold 853, are built into frames using a larger diameter tubing.

Staggerwing has an excellent explanation of how the different dimensions affect the tube performance.

All the steels, new and old, when shaped the same in diameter and wall thickness, will flex the same.

But the newer steels will flex more before they take a permanent bend. You could say they are stronger.

To take advantage of the newer steels' strength you reduce the wall thickness and save weight, but the tube becomes a little bit more flexible.

To regain the stiffness, you increase the diameter. Little increases in diameter result in tremendous increases in stiffness. Don't quote me but it's something like a 10% increase in diameter gets you a 100% increase in resistance to flex.

So the tube manufacturers found they could make the newer steels' tubes lighter than the older stuff yet increase the stiffness without a weight penalty. It was win-win.

You likely couldn't take Columbus SL say, and increase the diameter to match the new stuff then reduce the wall thickness to match the new stuff and get the same weight savings, without having tubes that were easier to dent than the older Columbus SL with 0.9/0.6/0.9mm walls.

[rounder]

I started school as an engineering major but did not go far enough to really learn about it. But i did work in the chemistry lab at Bethlehem Steel for a couple of summers while in school. The steel being manufactured was basically a soup mix...so much percent iron, carbon, sulfer, aluminum, manganese, etc. We would test for the metallurgy at different phases to ensure consistency...ore, slag, steel. Not all steel was the same. Some steel was designed to be more malleable based on the purpose, whether to be for soft steel as used for wiring or sheet metal while other was designed to be super hard with high carbon content for military purposes, etc. Not sure where bike tubing would have fallen in the mix. It would have been interesting to see whether the steel composition then for bikes would be much different than that used today.

[RkyMtn]

Great discussion.

I prefer the newer steels from Columbus, as I am a large person (6'1" and 195lbs) and the larger diameter pipes allow me to have a comparatively lighter frame that is laterally stiffer. That is a characteristic I needed. If you are smaller and lighter, then this might not be necessary.

Another characteristic I like of the new steels is that you can TIG weld them without the heat adversely affecting the steel (I recall some manufacturers using Reynolds 853 touting their frames as being "Air Hardened", LOL, that was a nice way of making a weakness into positive marketing hype.) I'm not the expert in this, but have met builders who confirmed my reading on this. Older steels will harden and be more brittle (I believe it has to due with the crystalization of the steel from the heat) in the long term in the heated areas, especially in high stress areas, like the traditional frame cracking on the seat tube above the BB. The newer steels alloy help alleviate this problem.

I would also think that a steel that is "air hardened" might also exhibit a stiffer ride feel and transmit vibration easier.

Wall thickness is the other great benefit from the newer steels, as they can be drawn thinner, lightening the frame, enlarging the tube diameter, and also muting vibration better.

Newer tubes also will not rust as easily.

My favorite bike of all time was a 2004 Mondonico built of Columbus Foco. Stiff and smooth. Lovely build by one of Italy's premier builders, Antonio Mondonico. I now have 2 Peg's, and I like these too, but they are race bikes and ride like a race bike. Still remarkably smooth for the lateral stiffness. Finally, the nicest all day steel is the Master X-Light of Colnago. Little more lateral flex, but worth it for the gorgeous vertical compliance.

Best of luck on the build.

Eric