Modern steels- can they get any better?

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by vespasianus

One way to look at the role of aero is with the Kona Iron Man. I might be wrong but I thought they have been doing the same basic ride at the Kona Iron man since the 1980s.

In the 1980's - at the very start of the event - they were doing the 118 mile ride in roughly 4:45 minutes. In the early-mid 1990's they were down to 4:20 and now they are down to ~4:10. So basically from the 1990's to now, the riders and bikes have gotten faster by 10 minutes over 118 miles- I think that is about 0.2 seconds per mile.

The fastest guy today is about 26.8 MPH and the fastest guy in the mid 90's was 24.8. If you consider them to be using aero bars, that would be about a 70 watt difference.

The bikes have changed dramatically and Tri bikes have much greater aero benefits compared to the typical road racing time trial bike - and compared to a normal "aero" bike, I bet it is almost that.

Now, lots of assumption here and I will mention that overall times have only come down by about 20 minutes since the inception. I am also only looking at the fastest times. The best analysis would be to look at specific riders who have done the ride over a number of years.

I like the idea of your analysis, but 10 minutes of difference over 118 miles would be 600 seconds per 118 miles or about 5 seconds per mile difference.

You're also assuming an equal level of fitness (watts per cross sectional area?) for different riders. It might be better to look at median times over the top twenty or top forty bike split times over that ~30 year period.

And that's for a TT. Over in the recent "carbon rims" thread, some posters there make the point that aero can be really important for short time intervals in a group setting -- like closing a gap after a corner, etc.

[Turkle]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

I like the idea of your analysis, but 10 minutes of difference over 118 miles would be 600 seconds per 118 miles or about 5 seconds per mile difference.

You're also assuming an equal level of fitness (watts per cross sectional area?) for different riders. It might be better to look at median times over the top twenty or top forty bike split times over that ~30 year period.

Another issue is that the benefits might not 100% show up in average speed.

Like, for instance, what if due to aero benefits all the riders can sort of slack a bit, saving their matches for a break on a big climb or a final sprint? Depending on race tactics, the average speed might not improve that much but it might totally alter the tactics around a break or a sprint.

Just a thought.

[Waldo62]

Speaking of 28mph average speed and what type of bike can help you achieve it: "It [2024] was a record-breaking edition of Milan San Remo, with an average speed of 46.133kph (28.665mph) on the 285km course — the previous record was 45.806kph, set in 1990." https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com...-finish-sprint

Gianni Bugno won the 1990 M-SR on a Moser AX Leader, and I assume we can agree that the rest of the peloton was on round-tubed, lugged steel bikes also. All the awesome 21st Century uber light/uber aero bikes have given racers using the latest and greatest in nutrition and training methods is 0.3kph, accomplished on a course 13km shorter than the 1990 race.

[tv_vt]

Originally Posted by Waldo62

Speaking of 28mph average speed and what type of bike can help you achieve it: "It [2024] was a record-breaking edition of Milan San Remo, with an average speed of 46.133kph on the 285km course — the previous record was 45.806kph, set in 1990." https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com...-finish-sprint

Gianni Bugno won the 1990 M-SR on a Moser AX Leader, and I assume we can agree that the rest of the peloton was on round-tubed, lugged steel bikes also. All the awesome 21st Century uber light/uber aero bikes have given racers using the latest and greatest in nutrition and training methods is 0.3kph, accomplished on a course 13km shorter than the 1990 race.

Not to mention what else he might have been 'on' in 1990.

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

I like the idea of your analysis, but 10 minutes of difference over 118 miles would be 600 seconds per 118 miles or about 5 seconds per mile difference.

You're also assuming an equal level of fitness (watts per cross sectional area?) for different riders. It might be better to look at median times over the top twenty or top forty bike split times over that ~30 year period.

And that's for a TT. Over in the recent "carbon rims" thread, some posters there make the point that aero can be really important for short time intervals in a group setting -- like closing a gap after a corner, etc.

Thanks, brain fart and fixed the math. Without question, looking at more riders would have value. The one point of only looking at the very top riders are that you are looking at the extremes. The means of the top 10 for example are much closer in time, and suggest an even lower "aero" advantage.

And looking at a Tri segment, for the pros, you can assume everyone is an aero position (aero bar) - that I still say trumps everything else bike related.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

aero can be really important for short time intervals in a group setting -- like closing a gap after a corner, etc.

Yeah, rider education can address that issue far cheaper than a new aero bike though.

:::gets off soapbox:::

[callmeishmael]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

Yeah, rider education can address that issue far cheaper than a new aero bike though.

:::gets off soapbox:::

To a point. I'd like to think I'm no group ride mug, but it is not always possible to be first into a corner, to get onto a certain rider's wheel, or even to be on the best line when someone's on your elbow and there's a pothole coming up. And even then, a hard kick out of a corner is a well known tactic for stringing the group out.

[callmeishmael]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

How much of the cost of a steel frame is material, and how much of the cost is the labor and tooling to make a frame out of it? And do stronger/harder steels increase the costs of labor and tooling?

The various framebuilders on here will have forgotten more than I know, but retail for an XCR tubeset in the UK is about £700 including 20% VAT. I'm reliably informed that it's a bear on tools (often being harder than the tools used to cut and shape it).

In contrast, a Zona tubeset is about £180 (again, retail, inc VAT), so just over 25% of the price. It is supposedly far easier to work on/with, so much less hard on tools, and much less time consuming.

You therefore have some idea why I was told that 'cost price' (finished, painted, ready to build into a bike) of an XCR frame was around £2000, and Zona about £600.

Aside from the tubeset prices, which a Google search will verify, I'd stress this is second hand info, but it seems broadly accurate and roughly corresponds to the retail prices I've seen from various UK framebuilders. Of course, everyone includes different things in 'cost', and economies of scale can come into play, but the comparison is more interesting than the absolute number, I'd suggest.

[Waldo62]

Originally Posted by tv_vt

Not to mention what else he might have been 'on' in 1990.

I think we all know what Bugno et al. were on, but we are not so naive as to believe that today's peloton is riding on bread and water, are we?

[tv_vt]

Originally Posted by Waldo62

I think we all know what Bugno et al. were on, but we are not so naive as to believe that today's peloton is riding on bread and water, are we?

No, we're not. I get that.

Back on topic, I have an XCr frameset and it has easily re-jiggered my thinking that titanium is the top dog for building bike frames. That stainless frame was really eye-opening to me. Great stuff.

[unterhausen]

Since this largely morphed into a discussion of aero, there was some time not so long ago pros started wearing much more aero clothing. I feel like this was a fairly significant development. Maybe just as significant as the aero development in the bikes. Nobody is particularly motivated to find out at this time, maybe if someone decides they have run out of whooshy shapes for the frames and needs a marketing hook that will get us all to buy new round tubed steel bikes. I really doubt they are going to make any money convincing us to wear skin suits.

[Mr steel]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

The various framebuilders on here will have forgotten more than I know, but retail for an XCR tubeset in the UK is about £700 including 20% VAT. I'm reliably informed that it's a bear on tools (often being harder than the tools used to cut and shape it).

In contrast, a Zona tubeset is about £180 (again, retail, inc VAT), so just over 25% of the price. It is supposedly far easier to work on/with, so much less hard on tools, and much less time consuming.

You therefore have some idea why I was told that 'cost price' (finished, painted, ready to build into a bike) of an XCR frame was around £2000, and Zona about £600.

Aside from the tubeset prices, which a Google search will verify, I'd stress this is second hand info, but it seems broadly accurate and roughly corresponds to the retail prices I've seen from various UK framebuilders. Of course, everyone includes different things in 'cost', and economies of scale can come into play, but the comparison is more interesting than the absolute number, I'd suggest.

Fyi When commissioning my custom XCr Road frame from cicli barco I was quoted 4000 eur for frame with XCr and 3500 eur for spirit tubing (which I assume columbus second best tubing).

A full set of xcr tubing is currently 893 eur and spirit 306 eue over at ciclicorsa.
https://ciclicorsa.com/bicycle-parts...-steel-tubing/

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

Since this largely morphed into a discussion of aero, there was some time not so long ago pros started wearing much more aero clothing. I feel like this was a fairly significant development. Maybe just as significant as the aero development in the bikes. Nobody is particularly motivated to find out at this time, maybe if someone decides they have run out of whooshy shapes for the frames and needs a marketing hook that will get us all to buy new round tubed steel bikes. I really doubt they are going to make any money convincing us to wear skin suits.

Even for us slow not-racers, clothing matters. I don't wear skinsuits but I ride through the Martha's Vineyard winter and definitely notice my speed is faster as the weather warms up and I'm down to tights and a race fit long sleeve jersey. I understand that there are other temperature effects - wind resistance drops as air density drops, rolling resistance decreases with temperature - but I think the clothing drag isn't trivial.

[Mr. Pink]

I'm biased because I own one, but I accepted that steel was pretty much dead when Carl Strong announced he isn't making them anymore. I saw the writing on the wall when I briefly met Ben Serotta once in '10 or so, and he told me that steel was only 10% of his sales, and that was back when steel was significantly cheaper.

[callmeishmael]

Originally Posted by Mr steel

Fyi When commissioning my custom XCr Road frame from cicli barco I was quoted 4000 eur for frame with XCr and 3500 eur for spirit tubing (which I assume columbus second best tubing).

A full set of xcr tubing is currently 893 eur and spirit 306 eue over at ciclicorsa.
https://ciclicorsa.com/bicycle-parts...-steel-tubing/

Well, £2000 is about E2300, so a retail of E4000 (presumably including Italian VAT?) sounds about right for rrp vs cost.