Steel is Stupid!!!!

[Hard Fit]

Okay, this board has gotten way too tame and boring. It is time to stir up the pot.

It seems to me that the new steels get away from the qualities that made the ride of the old steels unparalleled. In an attempt to get light to compete with aluminum and carbon fiber, the harshness of the ride has increased. This has led to carbon seat stays, carbon forks, or bends in the seat stays to make the bike comfortable to ride. To me these innovations detract from what a steel bike should look and feel like. Do we also lose performance with a carbon fork? My understanding is that a steel fork is more laterally rigid than a carbon fork. Am I wrong?

For the “Steel is Real” riders, if you could have a bike built with any steel from the past or present, would you go with the newer steels or the old legends such as Reynolds 531 or Columbus SL/SLX?

While this post is presented in a fashion to inflame, I am actually interested in the answers as I suspect my next bike would be steel. Although, given how long I keep a bike that might be a decade away.

[e-RICHIE]

"It seems to me that the new steels get away from the qualities that made the ride of the old steels unparalleled. In an attempt to get light to compete with aluminum and carbon fiber, the harshness of the ride has increased."




it has?
hmmm.

[Larry]

When was the last time you road a nice steel frame bike.
Justify your comments with your personal experiences with steel. :banana: :banana: :banana:

[PanTerra]

With that thread title, you will get quite a few views. At least that will get people to respond. First, bikes that have been in my road stable (all steel)


1968 AMF Hercules English Racer Stermy Archer 3-spd
1971 Schwinn Varsity
1974 Schwinn Continental
1980 PUCH Series II Pathfinder
1984 Peugeot PGN10: Frame and fork - Reynolds 501
1987 Peugeot Sante': Frame and fork - Reynolds 531 Professional - (red label)
2001 LeMond Zurich : Frame - Reynolds 853 Pro/Fork - ICON Air Rail
2002 Serotta CSi : Frame - C4S Colo Concept/Fork - Reynolds Uzo Pro
2003 Tommasini Tecno:Frame - Columbus NEMO/Fork - Columbus Foderi

The PUCH rode like an APC as opposed to the tanks of the schwinn line

The Peugeot with 501 rode like light weight rebar.

The Peugeot with 531 rode much nicer, but in a 62 cm, the thin walled narrow tubes exacerbated high speed wobble.

The Lemond with 853 rode the best up to that. Larger diameter tubing reduced the wobble. This bike rode like butter. I really like the feel of this steel. However, the rear was way too soft...er, the bikes rear, that is, due to the poorly designed spindly stays - very narrow the full length of the seat stays. About as narrow as my little finger.

The CSi, same ride feel but minus the soft rear feeling, felt quicker, livelier. I commonly describe it as the bike feeling like melted butter, and the bike might just squirt out from under me if I didn't hold on.

The Tomm with the Columbus, similar smoothness and road feel, just not the same snap feeling when accelerating, little more of a harder ride.
(This is sooo subjective) More reminiscent of the 531 Pro, but no wobble.

In my experience, the steel ride has only gotten better.

The steel forks on the steel bikes are fine. Heavier, but fine. However, they do have their limits. They can flex on fast descents while turning hard, causing a tendency to oversteer into the turn. I found this to be the case on a friends IF straight steel fork, and my Tomm's steel fork. When her steel fork was replaced with the carbon, the flex diminished considerably as not to be noticeable. The only real difference that I have felt in vibration damping has been when comparing carbon to aluminum as in some of the older trek forks.

[coylifut]

I'm currently riding steel bikes made of Columbus SP, Columbus SL and Deda Uno (is that a newer steel?). I've had two bikes made of 853. One I didn't like and one I did.

So, I don't share your experience. The "new" steel rides as nice as the old steel.

BTW. This is the kind of thread you start on a Friday night, not a Monday morning.

[Serotta PETE]

Go ride a CIII, CSI, or Sachs and then you can correct your above assumptions......

So much for being tamel :beer:

[saab2000]

New steel is good. I had a Foco bike from Anvil. It was stiff and light.

Most carbon stays are for marketing purposes and have little if any impact on anything except perceived coolness. That is my opinion. ST stays by Serotta at least have a pivot and are intended to flex. Most people say they work as advertised. But that is the exception, not the rule.

In have bikes of old steel (531, SL) and of new steel (Foco). The new stuff is stiffer and lighter.

[skim500]

I think the rider's intent is probably paramount here. More responsive, stiffer, great climber? Newer stiffer metals with wider tubes are probably better. But if you are like myself, old school, or more actually, old, then old tubes might be good. I just built up a 87 Schwinn Waterford Paramount (Columbus SLX). For comparison I have owned a 97 Waterford 1200 (753) and two 853 Waterfords. I have ridden the new R-33.

I don't profess night and day differences between them but they are certainly tangible to me. The Columbus and 753 feel plusher to me, softer. The 853's felt not necessarily harsher, but stronger and stiffer. Still a nice ride. The R-33 with OS tubes felt close to a Klein Quantum Race that I owned.

Just in my head? Probably will never know. In any case, I think this is a great thread but for someone like me, read: not fast, not strong, not big, I love the old metals. So I agree that I think I like older better, but I guess that a stronger and better rider who leans more towards competitive riding versus a solo or club dork like myself would enjoy the more efficient transfer of energy of stiffer and lighter tubes.

skim

[keno]

"there is no stupid steel; only stupid steelers".

keno

[Todd Owen]

I think the new all steel frames are every bit as comfortable a ride as the older steel frames. I would never use the word harsh to describe any of my newer steel frames. I think the carbon fiber fork and rear ends are more of a way to sell bikes and is the latest fad. I also fish with bamboo rods which were obsolete 20 years ago and love the way they feel. I should be getting my new Mike Clark 7 ft 9 inch 5 wt. garrison 209-e replica any time now..... same price as a CSi frame. My only carbon forks are on my Legend Ti and my Derosa . The carbon fork just soaks up the bumps a bit differently. My buddy just got a CDA with carbon rear end and carbon fork. He thinks the carbon will smooth out all the bumps and help his inability to be flexible. I think a steel frame with a bit larger tires and tuned for him would have been just as good. My opinion.

[e-RICHIE]

"I should be getting my new Mike Clark 7 ft 9 inch 5 wt. garrison 209-e replica any time now..."

cool-o-rama.
tell all.

[Steel Israel]

My steeds are:

1998 Lemond Zurich, 853-new steel
2001 Waterford, 531-old steel
19?? Bridgestone RBT, Tange-old steel
2003 Cervelo Super Prodigy, Columbus Thermachrom-new steel
19?? Serotta Colorado II, Columbus

I think the new steels ride every bit as nice as the older steels. The Cervelo is a bit stiffer than the others but still soaks up road buzz better than any aluminum frame I've ever been on. I'm probably going to sell the Waterford as it doesn't do anything the other bikes can't while being the heaviest of the lot.

[Dekonick]

Cant say about new steel - but I love my Columbus ride.

Ti is quite nice too.

[Too Tall]

Tell me about some of the steel bikes you ride. Where would we be without marketing hype?

Are you an equal opportunity hater?

[Darrell]

Hi "Gladdies" and "Hard Fit", my thoughts are that the increase of steel frame tube sizes that started circa 1990 from 28.6mm DT to 31.7 DT and 25.4 TT to 28.6 TT was a good thing. I feel the ride quality did increase. By that I mean a reasonable balance of stiffness and ride comfort. The ride comfort it seems did not diminish by perceptible amounts for most riders. However the stiffness and pedal grunt response seemed to be better. The maths backs this up.
The newer steels that also arrived at the same time are by far much better metalurgically than 531 and Columbus Cyclex steel. They have a better fatigue resistance.
The new steels do nothing for ride quality or stiffness etc, rather they allow thinner and bigger tubes to be used reliably. {some heat treated tubes are not what they are craked up to be}
However the craze to go too light {I feel under .65m wall thickness at tube ends and plus 35mm diameter} and larger is better is not always a good thing. 38mm DT tubes are OK if used in a big frame {+60cm}and or under a solid chap {+80kg}. I feel 35mm DT with a good wall thickness is fine for the big lads. {Kirk's "Slant 6" compact angle lugs is a good thing}
Consumer visual aesthetics desire "BIGGER" looking tubes, but this is not always the way to use steel correctly.
I agree with comments that the carbon rear ends are unnessassary.
Opinion!
Correct selection of steel seat stay diameter and wall thickness will give the desired ride characteristics, with out the need for curves, bends and bonding or carbon.
However, Carbon forks are mainly about a weight issue.
Also builders love the ease of pulling a fork out of a box and plugging it into the frame. I however believe steel forks have a lot to offer! They ride well if made correctly, stiffer steerer tubes which eliminates the stem prissing itself up the steerer and the resultant head set rattle. Also one can make a steel fork with greater alignment accuracy than the carbon products. The big plus, is lower failure rate!
As for ride quality, 10 psi in the tyres and 3mm bigger bag makes a greater difference than some of the carbon products out there. {but that is not technical enough for some} Many times a rider will believe what he or she is has read about a material and transfer it 100% to what they are using. Such as if it is carbon then it must be shock absorbing and complient and stiff and thus faster. They apply this to all things from frames, carbon gear levers, through to head set spacers and derailleur parts. So when I ride my carbon frame I precieve it to ride like what the adverts and magazines have been blurbing.
Which may be true or nonsense depending on the construction methods of the frame or part etc etc..............
But in any case, "If you think it is working, then it is working" Meaning if you percieve it works, it is working or has worked.
All the 'Crystal Cranks" out there, no matter what material the bike is made of, it will not put more watts on the pedal.
Hard, tough, strong bike riders put put more watts on the pedals.

PS Also always give me press in head cups for good headset bearing alignment and NO RATTLES!

[Climb01742]

hello,
via dario my marcelo
rides ever so swello.
while riding i dwello,
on how it could be so mello.

[weisan]

hello,
via dario my marcelo
rides ever so swello.
while riding i dwello,
on how it could be so mello.

climb-pal, are you okay? I'm kinda concerned here.

Another cautionary tale on making sure that we pick the right people to go on vacation with. :rolleyes:

Anyway, welcome back! I missed you...

Not much has changed but a few quick updates: dirt-pal is putting up a peep-show-admission is free, the jerk finally "tensioned" his muscles (and cleaned his bike, although we need to rescue those noodlebars, he's breakin'em like straws), Doofus is inviting everyone to stay in his house but stay-far-away-from-his-blog, our beloved dbrk is slowly but surely coming out of withdrawal, and oh yeah, last but not least, don't forget to go make 700X23c feel at home here. :D

[jerk]

the jerk will let you know if steel sucks as soon as his emma is built. for some strange reason the jerk doesn't think it's going to suck.
jerk

[csb]

ever try a ron kusse?

[Too Tall]

Keep talking Dazza it's way over my head but I am catching about every other word which is not bad for me. Seriously, your thoughts are appreciated and it really will take me about a month to figure it out.

[Peter]

All I've ever ridden is steel. My current frames are:

ATB-Reynolds 853. Typical ATB diameter steel tubes, which means slightly oversized from the old 1" standard. IF rigid steel fork, too. For my 135 lb. body it's fine. It's stiff enough and absorbs shock enough. All I ask is that it be stiff enough to leave the chain rub to blame on the crankset, and it be strong enough to withstand most dent opportunities.

Commuter-custom frame with no tubing decals so I have no idea what the tubes are. 1" standard diameter tubing. I've already figured out that a stiffer frame isn't going to get me to the finish line first; I just plain can't sprint. The bike doesn't shimmy and the steel fork feels fine. Doesn't feel like it beats me up.

Road-20+ year old Trek lugged steel frame. Reynolds 531 main DB main tubes and Tange #2 fork and stays. 1" diameter tubing. Same as the commuter above in all respects.

I'm all for progress in steel tubes, but they're getting too fragile to be considered durable goods i.e., dent resistance and longevity are being compromised. The ATB standard (read: slightly oversized) tubes seem to be a great compromise for road frames.

As for you carbon/steel fork question; comparing the two for stiffness is very much a matter of tube shape, so a carbon fork can be made as stiff as a steel bladed fork, it's just that the blades would be larger in diameter than ferrous legs.

[mdeeds71]

I will say this...for the record I have been riding aluminum Klein MTBs for over 10 years...In the beginning they were great...I am talking pre-trek and custom Klein frames...but then they went down hill...For the use of aluminum ie stregth and weight they were great for cost vs tooling...now I wish I would have bought a steel ibis or serotta mtb then instead...With my CDA I truely believe that the feeling of steel on road is much better...I had 26x1" on my pre-trek Klein for road riding and now it is single speed and comparing the two even though this is apples to oranges or better yet apple to applesause...The steel gives a more fogiving ride and will be more durable if taken care of...VS the aluminum that does not require upkeep vs a sudden crack...I will take steel any day and am/have been cornered into a FS MTB that is aluminum because cost in a reputable Ti Seven FS MTB is too much to spend.

[MRB]

My experience is that the newer steels are stiffer, perhaps because many have gone to "Oversized" diameters, yet they still retain the ride qualities that I prefer.

There are a lot of reasons to choose steel as a frame material, and ride qualtiy is only one of several.

I choose to buy (and ride!!) steel bikes for reasons in addition to ride qualities. Some of these reasons are repairability, aesthetics, and durability. I have also found that the framebuilders skills, experience, and talents are more important than the model of tubing that is used.

I have also come to realize that there is a huge trade-off between weight and durability. My preference is to accept a half pound of added frame weight and benefit from a more durable tool, something I can ride down a gravel road and feel comfortable on.

To answer your question on using newer material over older material, the only benefit I can see to the older material is aesthetics. I like the look of the traditional skinny top tubes used on the older SL, SLX, 531 etc. tubesets.
The top-notch paint jobs that we are privledged to have available today, make up for thiis traditional tubing appearance factor.

HTH

[SPOKE]

Hard Fit,
first chance you get to ride a new Sachs or CSi i think your tune will change. these framesets are everything the old SLX/SL/531 framesets are but have "brighter" personalities. they just step up the game a couple levels with out adding additional harshness.

[shinomaster]

A material can not be stupid, but the person who builds with it can be.

[William]

Stupid is as stupid does. (sorry :rolleyes: )

My two cents from the Big Boy perspective.

The older steel frames were just plain noodles. Ride quality varied between tube sets, but sprinting & out of saddle climbing meant noodle time in the sizes that I run.

Now days with the larger diameter tubing, larger frames have become stiffer & more durable, but in most cases the ride quality hasn't suffered. It's just as good or better.

William

[Hard Fit]

A lot of good points and information have been brought up in the posts. It has been interesting reading. One thing I haven't seen is much discussion on the steel vs. carbon fork. I will make the generalization that a steel fork on a steel bike gives you way better road feel than a carbon fork. If the new steels need a carbon fork to make them rideable, I think that is a step backwards.

Comments?

[dave thompson]

Who said 'new steels' need a carbon fork to ride better? That's not been my experience. When I swapped out the steel fork for a carbon fork on my very first Serotta (an Atlanta) I was a rank newbie and didn't know better. I later reinstalled the steel fork and like the ride much better. On my CSi, I left the steel fork in place, as did on my Della Santa. When I had my Kirk built, I had a steel fork made to match. A good builder can make a steel fork to fit the bike/rider combo just as he would make the frame to suit.

[flydhest]

Actually, you all are all falling victim to marketing hype. Steel really is crap. Particularly in size 60. All of these bikes suck and are not worth anything. As a result, you might as well let me dispose of them for you. This is particularly true if they have a steel fork and the bike was designed by a so-called "master builder." Sheesh, what hooey. If anyone out there has a size 60 Sachs or Pegoretti or Merckxx or Eisentraut or Spectrum for example, STOP KIDDING yourself. They are worthless and you can count on me to get them off your hands so you can get something that is truly worthy of you.

Other things that also suck and therefor should be shunned by everyone but me:

Burgundies (both red and white)
Kona coffee
tubular tires
black Perigord truffles (note to everyone in the world, these are awful so there is no reason for you to pay any amount of money, let alone an exorbitant price, for them.)
Barolos
Single-malt Scotch

[PanTerra]

:crap: I have a 62 cm CSi, so I suppose that is too big for you to dispose of. I also have an uzo pro fork on it, never did have a crappy steel fork on it. So I guess I am out of luck in getting rid of this thing.

[Kevan]

Lice try...

But "the 60 cm only" garbage trucks are coming to this landfill for deposit. It's a mob thing.

[William]

ice try...

But "the 60 cm only" garbage trucks are coming to this landfill for deposit. It's a mob thing.

You want I should wahck im? Da fly can go swimin wit da fishes. :cool: Kapiche?


Vinnie ;)

[Kevan]

I forgot about this here website that sheds light on steel. Some one else who knows more on pipes and their likes can offer a review on this commentary; it appears a bit dated:

http://www.desperadocycles.com/The_Lowdown_On_Tubing/About_Steel_Tubing_frameset.htm

[Marron]

Back in 95/96 Bicycle Guide did a blind comparison of Colubus' then current offerings. Mondonico brazed up the frames and they were all painted identically. As I recall, the reviewer couldn't distinguish much difference between the 7 or 8 bikes he rode. His first pick was one of the lower grade "sport" tube sets like Aelle.

Now none of these were "new" steels; probably the most modern was EL-OS, but the point was that the reviewer found the frames so similar that without the aid of decal based expectations it was impossible to find any functional difference. I'm sure that if you threw some oversized thin wall tubing in that mix it would have been easier to tell them apart, but would there have really been a difference you could feel?

(BTW, if anyone still has a copy of that issue I would love to get my hands on a reprint of that article.)

As the owner of a broad Columbus assortment; Aelle, SLX, MX and EL-OS, plus a True Temper Gunnar, I can vouch for differences, but not neccesarily preferences. I happen to really like the Aelle Saronni frame I just got. It actually feels better to me than either the SLX or MX Merckx I ride. The Gunnar, which is the most modern steel bike I own feels somewhat stiffer, but I think that's based on my expectation that it be that way.

[flydhest]

Lice try...

But "the 60 cm only" garbage trucks are coming to this landfill for deposit.

So I noticed, you posted a picture.

(ooh, low blow).

[Insight Driver]

Steel is an excellent material to design a bike with. So is titanium. So is aluminum. So are carbon fiber composites. It's not the material that makes a bike feel different, it's the design!

What's the difference between new steel and old? Strength, not flexibility. You can bend it farther without it breaking. You can pull on it harder before it breaks, but it's just as flexible as the older steels.

The newer steel designs use larger tubes for greater stiffness. I like stiff, and I like comfort.. what makes comfort is some flex in the fork and tires. Take a whimpy frame and run on steel rims, you will find harsh.. put some rubber on those rims and you get.. go figure: smoooooth.

It's not the material, it's the design. Craig Calfee made a bike out of bamboo joined with carbon-fiber joints after all!

As far as fork is concerned, the amount of trail and the flex designed in makes the difference, not the material it was made out of. :fight:

[PanTerra]

It's not the material, it's the design. Craig Calfee made a bike out of bamboo joined with carbon-fiber joints after all!

hmm, yeah I have heard that mantra a lot. It seems that it takes a whole hell of a lot of designing to get that sweet feel of steel. :p I wonder if that bamboo bike has a dead wood feel.

[hybridbellbaske]

Hey Marron- Believe it or not I still have that Bicycle Guide article.

Marron thinks "Hmm that's that weird Australian guy who had the collection of reviews of Max/Mxl tubed bikes... does his geekiness know no bounds?"

Well, unfortunately its true- my geekiness knows no bounds.

Send me PM with your address and I'll throw a copy in the mail- you're in Seattle, right?

[Orin]

(BTW, if anyone still has a copy of that issue I would love to get my hands on a reprint of that article.)



This was discussed recently on the I-BOB list and this link came up:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/mrgrumpy/randompics/mag7.pdf

Orin.

[Kane]

I inspected and talked to the owner of Bamboo bike #1. He was a Ironman Competitor in HAWAII.
-The bike is IMO the most beautiful bike on the planet
-The owner of the bike told me that the bike was very smooth. He also noted that it was stiff enough that the chain rings did not rub the front derailleur.
-The race that year had horrific winds on the bike course. The wind would go from a steady 20 to 40 MPH cross winds, when you road past some of the trees/bushes along the side of the road. Some of the racers with real hot didley doo time trial bikes were blown off their bikes because of the high wind profile on the tubing of their 'aero' bikes.

Marron,
I remember another bike magazine doing a tubing comparison of 531 vs. 753 on identical frames. The reviewers preferred the 531 frame.

Cheers,

Kane

[Darrell]

Marron,
I remember another bike magazine doing a tubing comparison of 531 vs. 753 on identical frames. The reviewers preferred the 531 frame.

Cheers,

Kane[/QUOTE]

Because the 531 tubes were two tenths thicker hence a bit stiffer.
Add a few tenths and let the rest get on with the madness.
Yes I do have a 753 cert. Never used it and never would and never will.

[Too Tall]

Boy do I rememer that issue, it gave me a couple chuckles. The quotes are priceless-issimo.