Another (obvious, but bears mentioning) point here is weight of the rider. I’m 6’ 2” and close to 200 pounds in all my cycling kit, so my experience on an identical steel bike (size, tubing, tires, pressure, etc.) to someone who weighs 175 pounds or 225 pounds is likely to be significant in the same way that riding a bike and then putting 25 pounds of luggage on it feels different. Let alone the difference between a 175 pound rider and a 225 pound rider, both of whom could be fit cyclists and riding the same hypothetical 60cm or 62cm steel frame that I would ride.

I had a custom bike made a 6 years ago. I told them to use the same geometry as my Merckx I had at the time but wanted a softer ride for the trails. Well it came out too soft and spongy and not as springy as you describe. Too bad I let go of the Merckx.

TLDR: modern steel is a wonder (for us bike geeks).

I definitley think there's something to modern steel v previous generations. AND, I think that rubber over a 28 will really limit the ability to feel these differences. A 32 will mute lots of stiffness...not always the best thing.

So, for "pure road" steel, I do think modern is "better"...when chosen by a builder for your weight/power. I don't know of mass produced bikes (aside from a Ritchey) not being brutally overbuilt.

So if I were going for off the shelf, a Ritchey Road Logic. Though I've been told by those that have a Road Logic that the ride isn't on par with say a Kirk. Maybe conf bias, but who really knows. I trust the guys telling me this as I can tell a difference in what I ride.

I have a Kirk JKS built with OS and 1" steerer (c 2011). It's so lovely. It's stiff enough but has just a little give/spring at the BB on hard efforts (sprinting/climbing). Even with the 1" steerer, there's no twisting at the HT. I would not say noodley or mushy. Just proper.

I also have a Peg Mxxxxxo. As is known, it has HUGE pipes. It's stiff. No wiggle. It's a marvel to ride. It's stiff/responsive like carbon, but also has the high tensile (for lack of a better word) "tingle" of steel.

Both of these frames have a "brightness" to them. They ride "lightly". Not dead or plodding. By that I mean how the road is felt through the frames...and how the frames respond to riding inputs/efforts. It's like a high tensile tingle....like a high frequency. I know that may sounds odd, but I don't know how to describe it better. What I'm trying do say is that neither of these bikes feel wooden or dead.

I've felt a similar ride quality with Ti. However, it's different. It's a different frequency. I can feel it's a different material.

Same for carbon though carbon has a muted (not in a bad bay) quality. Where I cannot feel the road zing...that is traded off for a pleasant feel of stiffness at the BB. No wiggling at all. Again, not in a bad way.

So, I think the tubing matters and can have a noticeable difference in the ride quality.

Note: all these are ridden with 28s. I'm also 6'2"/ ~190-200lbs.

Good examples.

Apparently I'm not looking for a lively ride. I weigh about 135, so all frames are plenty stiff. I ride on lots of chip seal, so modern tubeless tires at low pressure are appreciated. My bikes are all carbon and they all have stiff tube shapes, but they all ride great.

I can tell the difference when I'm riding the same 28mm tire with 10psi more pressure, as recommended for 19mm IW hooked rim. 23-25mm IW hookless is better.

Nice description and exactly what I think of the ride of my Hampsten Il Barone. Built in 2021, modern steel (Columbus Spirit and Life if I remember correctly). Enve fork. I'm 6 ft 1 in, 175 lbs. Run 28's inflated 75 rear and 70 front.

Don't give up too easily, keep trying different things
 

I used to switch bikes at a whim. And I have divorced and re-married so many times that I should be banned from getting another bike.

It took me a while to settle down and finally figure out a few things.

1) Understand that this is all subjective.

You can argue until your face is red that you can really feel the difference and I will submit to you that you can indeed. I am not trying to disregard your feelings. The only point I am making here is that it's subjective and it varies from person to person, from time to time.

2) Small changes can go a loooong way sometimes.

You will be surprised at how a small change to things like saddle choice, saddle tilt, tire choices, tire pressure, sleeping patterns, shifter positions, so on and so forth.....can make a difference in how you "feel".

Basically, the point of it is, if you don't like how a bike rides, experiment with making changes here and there and give it another try. If nothing else works, and you happen to have multiple bikes, hang up the bike for a couple of weeks, ride the other bikes, come back to it again later, at a different time, ride it on a different route, with a different group, when you feel stronger or brighter...sometimes the "problem" is not with the bike, it's YOU.

All of these, I speak from experience.

Keep it interesting, keep it fresh, gain a different perspective, give it a try again under different circumstances...you will be pleasantly surprised.

We are creatures of habits.

It takes a different approach sometimes to break that habit or fixed thinking.

If your frame is custom, it depends on what you ask the builder to do. I've asked for a flexy, springy all-day bike from Chris Kvale. He delivered exactly that, and it rides wonderfully (Reynolds 653; I love the ride and someone else might not). I can say the same thing about my 2021 Slim Chance, 1978ish Ron Cooper (Reynolds 531), 1982 Brian Baylis, 1982 Picchio Special (Columbus SL), 1984 Richard Sachs, 25-year old Glenn Erickson (Reynolds 531c), 2022 David Kirk and ~20-year old Steve Rex. (If I didn't name the tubing, it's because I don't know what the builder used.) Some others have performed as you described and are no longer in my stable.

Weisan, what do you think about different materials?

My riding partner's contention is that a uniquely steel ride feel is a myth, and I'm looking for something that will/would never really be there. I don't agree, but I could be wrong, and I’d be grateful for the hive wisdom.

I will probably do carbon in the coming years for weight and hopefully comfort (I have plenty of good steel).

Monkey pal, I think it boils down to personal preference.

I have known people who were perfectly happy with their material of choice be it carbon or titanium or steel or aluminum or magnesium.

Too many variables that go beyond the material when it comes to making a nice riding bike that are perfect for just the right person.

I truly believe I can be completely satisfied with a bike made of any material as long as it speaks to my preference. I prefer titanium mostly because I don't like to baby my bike.

^^^This is what I also think^^^

Many of us came up on Columbus SL/SLX in classic tubing sizes & that is the supple springy ride "I think" we remember ;)

Reynolds 531 and 653 is better and I'll fight you over this. :fight:

All you need is SL and a dream ATMO.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--WEzySYwf...0/IMG_0368.JPG

I love your Marinoni.

I don't have data to prove this, but I have a hunch that a lot of what we feel on a bike and interpret as ride quality can be attributed to the way different materials transmit and dampen vibrations and how different riders perceive those vibrations. Certain steels seem to have a characteristics ride quality (and other steels don't; a cheap steel frame I rode for a short while rode like a dump truck), and aluminum feels different than titanium than carbon fiber. Carbon fiber, being a highly tunable material, can probably be designed to come closest to the feeling of steel (or aluminum or titanium). Adding mass to a frame, all else being equal, would also add damping.

From a vertical compliance perspective, the softest spring in a series will dominate the overall stiffness of a system and in the case of a bicycle, that is the tires. But for a given tire type and pressure, different frame materials will still transmit vibrations differently.

From a lateral stiffness perspective, the movements at the BB are quite small and it is unlikely that frame stiffness matters a whole lot for any decent frame. For example, a steel frame might have a BB stiffness of around 40-50 N/mm whereas carbon fiber might be 60-80 N/mm. Considering that a typical rider might apply a lateral force on the order of a few hundred Newtons during a ride, the BB moves only a few millimeters, even on a less stiff steel frame.

There is also the issue of interfaces / joints and how they might contribute to ride quality. The smoothest riding frame I have ever had, by a long shot, is a titanium Seven with carbon seat and top tubes and chainstays. Theoretically, there is additional energy dissipation and damping that occurs at interfaces. Perhaps this is also a reason why lugged steel frames (and many lugged carbon ones as well) are touted for their ride quality?

Someone should write a dissertation on this. Or they already may have; I haven't dug around too much yet :)