Modern steels- can they get any better?

[mhespenheide]

A sideline:

We're six pages into this discussion and I'm a little amazed that no one has asked the question whether steel needs to get any better.

I'm going to step up onto my Luddite soapbox for a minute, so you're welcome to ignore my ranting and continue the topic as it stands, but -- if you're a rider that wants to chase seconds and race, or ride competitively in groups of enthusiasts, absolutely go for it. Carbon frame, aero, deep-section rims, go for it all.

But if riding five seconds per mile faster doesn't make any real difference to your enjoyment of the sport, steel is more than good enough as it is. It doesn't matter to me that Carl Strong stopped building with it when Dave Kirk and Pegoretti and many others are still building with it. Heck, I wouldn't mind dropping an 11-speed R7000 rim-brake group on a frame made with Reynolds 531. Keep me supplied with chains, good tires, and other consumables and I'd happily ride off into the sunset for the rest of my cycling days.

Do I admire @Clean39T's parade of amazing cutting-edge frames? Absolutely. But if I had to chose between riding my roads with his bikes or riding @velotel's roads with my old steel LeMond Poprad, well, I'll see you out there on the high cols with my outdated steel.

Great roads, the time to ride them, and great modern bikes? Sure, I'd take that too. Do I want a new Ti or carbon frame? Yeah. But steel is already good enough, from XCR through Spirit or Zona or 531, to be awesome.

[samkl]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

A sideline:

We're six pages into this discussion and I'm a little amazed that no one has asked the question whether steel needs to get any better.

I'm going to step up onto my Luddite soapbox for a minute, so you're welcome to ignore my ranting and continue the topic as it stands, but -- if you're a rider that wants to chase seconds and race, or ride competitively in groups of enthusiasts, absolutely go for it. Carbon frame, aero, deep-section rims, go for it all.

But if riding five seconds per mile faster doesn't make any real difference to your enjoyment of the sport, steel is more than good enough as it is. It doesn't matter to me that Carl Strong stopped building with it when Dave Kirk and Pegoretti and many others are still building with it. Heck, I wouldn't mind dropping an 11-speed R7000 rim-brake group on a frame made with Reynolds 531. Keep me supplied with chains, good tires, and other consumables and I'd happily ride off into the sunset for the rest of my cycling days.

Do I admire @Clean39T's parade of amazing cutting-edge frames? Absolutely. But if I had to chose between riding my roads with his bikes or riding @velotel's roads with my old steel LeMond Poprad, well, I'll see you out there on the high cols with my outdated steel.

Great roads, the time to ride them, and great modern bikes? Sure, I'd take that too. Do I want a new Ti or carbon frame? Yeah. But steel is already good enough, from XCR through Spirit or Zona or 531, to be awesome.

Amen.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

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.

We're definitely off-topic now, but just for the record: In the scenario being described, my comment about needing "rider education" pertained to the first cyclist through the corner:

If it's not a race, just a group ride, there are ways that the person at the front of the paceline can enter and exit that corner that will not require everyone behind him/her to worry about any of the issues you describe, and will definitely not require anyone to have to put out a hard effort just to close a gap.

But, ya know, that requires discipline, self-control, altruism, Riding For The Group Rather Than For Yourself, yadda-yadda...

Like I said, it's my soapbox. Sorry, back to modern steel...

[reuben]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

A sideline:

We're six pages into this discussion and I'm a little amazed that no one has asked the question whether steel needs to get any better.

I thought the same, and figured this thread could make it to 10 pages.

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

But if riding five seconds per mile faster doesn't make any real difference to your enjoyment of the sport, steel is more than good enough as it is.
...
Keep me supplied with chains, good tires, and other consumables and I'd happily ride off into the sunset for the rest of my cycling days.

[krooj]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

A sideline:

We're six pages into this discussion and I'm a little amazed that no one has asked the question whether steel needs to get any better.

There's always room for improvement, but bicycles are probably on the ass-end of innovation when it comes to metallurgy, shaping, and the like. It all comes down to costs - sure you can hydroform steel tubing to get exotic shapes that would alter ride characteristics, but that costs money and there are tons of lovely metal road bikes in the classifies that have sat around for months: there are no buyers. Contrast that with carbon, where similar tweaks aren't nearly as cost prohibitive and actually can scale with moulds.

TBH, titanium got really lucky with being amenable to 3D printing, otherwise it probably would've gone the same route as steel.

[Zackus]

Nobody has even mentioned Reynolds 1053...

Probably because it doesn't exist, and likely never will, but if it did, I would definitely want a bike made from tubes that had that sticker on it, so i could wax poetic about them "OMG i mean 1053 is a whole level above 953, it's crazy"

[EB]

Originally Posted by krooj

TBH, titanium got really lucky with being amenable to 3D printing, otherwise it probably would've gone the same route as steel.

Steel is extremely amenable to 3D printing.

e.g. Neuhaus Metalworks: https://www.neuhausmetalworks.com

[krooj]

Originally Posted by EB

Steel is extremely amenable to 3D printing.

e.g. Neuhaus Metalworks: https://www.neuhausmetalworks.com

Very cool!

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

A sideline:

We're six pages into this discussion and I'm a little amazed that no one has asked the question whether steel needs to get any better.

I'm going to step up onto my Luddite soapbox for a minute, so you're welcome to ignore my ranting and continue the topic as it stands, but -- if you're a rider that wants to chase seconds and race, or ride competitively in groups of enthusiasts, absolutely go for it. Carbon frame, aero, deep-section rims, go for it all.

But if riding five seconds per mile faster doesn't make any real difference to your enjoyment of the sport, steel is more than good enough as it is. It doesn't matter to me that Carl Strong stopped building with it when Dave Kirk and Pegoretti and many others are still building with it. Heck, I wouldn't mind dropping an 11-speed R7000 rim-brake group on a frame made with Reynolds 531. Keep me supplied with chains, good tires, and other consumables and I'd happily ride off into the sunset for the rest of my cycling days.

Do I admire @Clean39T's parade of amazing cutting-edge frames? Absolutely. But if I had to chose between riding my roads with his bikes or riding @velotel's roads with my old steel LeMond Poprad, well, I'll see you out there on the high cols with my outdated steel.

Great roads, the time to ride them, and great modern bikes? Sure, I'd take that too. Do I want a new Ti or carbon frame? Yeah. But steel is already good enough, from XCR through Spirit or Zona or 531, to be awesome.

Well, that was partially my point. Again, people often buy "new" bikes to be faster or lighter. We have been sold on the idea that carbon has the advantage of being more "aero" and allowing other shape forms. But if you look at something like the Iron Man Kona, were the bike portion has been the same for years, the move from old fashioned steel bikes (with aero bars) to very modern and creative looking carbon Tri-Bikes, has had a very limited impact upon "performance" - even those in an aero position and going all out! Without a doubt, that increase in performance is of great value if you are racing over 100+km but for most people just riding around, not sure if it is worth it. Bikes were good then and they are good now.

With that said, steel bikes have gotten better suited to the modern person. My 1999 Tommasini Sintesi was a great bike - when I was 150lbs. At 200, it is a little scary downhill. My 2022 Tommasini X-Fire (XCR) is just as light, just as comfortable but much more confidence inspiring going downhill or carving turns.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

But if riding five seconds per mile faster doesn't make any real difference to your enjoyment of the sport, steel is more than good enough as it is. It doesn't matter to me that Carl Strong stopped building with it when Dave Kirk and Pegoretti and many others are still building with it. Heck, I wouldn't mind dropping an 11-speed R7000 rim-brake group on a frame made with Reynolds 531. Keep me supplied with chains, good tires, and other consumables and I'd happily ride off into the sunset for the rest of my cycling days.

I'd go one step further. If you want a unique, customized frame, maybe with a specific geometry, or designed to attach specific accessories, etc., then steel may be superior material, in terms of being able to customize economically.

[rothwem]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

A sideline:

We're six pages into this discussion and I'm a little amazed that no one has asked the question whether steel needs to get any better.

I'm going to step up onto my Luddite soapbox for a minute, so you're welcome to ignore my ranting and continue the topic as it stands, but -- if you're a rider that wants to chase seconds and race, or ride competitively in groups of enthusiasts, absolutely go for it. Carbon frame, aero, deep-section rims, go for it all.

But if riding five seconds per mile faster doesn't make any real difference to your enjoyment of the sport, steel is more than good enough as it is. It doesn't matter to me that Carl Strong stopped building with it when Dave Kirk and Pegoretti and many others are still building with it. Heck, I wouldn't mind dropping an 11-speed R7000 rim-brake group on a frame made with Reynolds 531. Keep me supplied with chains, good tires, and other consumables and I'd happily ride off into the sunset for the rest of my cycling days.

Do I admire @Clean39T's parade of amazing cutting-edge frames? Absolutely. But if I had to chose between riding my roads with his bikes or riding @velotel's roads with my old steel LeMond Poprad, well, I'll see you out there on the high cols with my outdated steel.

Great roads, the time to ride them, and great modern bikes? Sure, I'd take that too. Do I want a new Ti or carbon frame? Yeah. But steel is already good enough, from XCR through Spirit or Zona or 531, to be awesome.

This guy knows. Steel doesn't need to get better, its good enough already. If you want peak performance, you should be on a carbon bike, no reason to consider anything else. Steel has a unique feel and the more you try to "improve it" the more you encounter tradeoffs found in aluminum bikes--poor fatigue resistance, ****ty ride and easily dented tubes. I think its best to approach a owning a steel bike like you would approach owning a muscle car or a Harley--its not going to be the peak of performance, but it'll give a pretty unmatched ride feel.

FWIW, I'm a materials engineer/metallurgist, I work for an auto parts company. Steel definitely has runway to improve, but the main advantage of steel from an engineering perspective is cost and ease of processing (which is also cost). But really, cost. And cost again. Cost cost cost. Steel/Iron is easily recycled, which is really its #1 advantage, because...(as you guessed) it lowers the price.

This has really guided how steel alloys are developed because anything its good at can be done by another material better, just not at the same price:
-Fatigue life? Yeah, steel is pretty good but carbon composites will dominate it in a fatigue test.
-Wear resistance? You can get some pretty wear resistant steel materials, but cobalt alloys will beat it if you have the budget.
-Corrosion resistance? Enh, not really. Some 300 series and duplex stainless alloys are pretty good, but as a rule of thumb for Fe-containing alloys, the stronger it is, the less corrosion resistant it is. The most corrosion resistant steels are just not very strong.
-Stiffness to weight? Nope, dominated by carbon fiber composites and aluminum alloys.
-Tensile strength per cross section? Nah, precipitation hardening superalloys will dominate AND provide fracture toughness that the steel part can't.

So basically every time steel is used in an engineered part, its used because a cost decision was made. The engineer decided that they could hit their performance targets using a cheaper material, so why would steel manufacturers decide to pour money into developing a product that engineers won't use? There's no point, thus steel will continue to be what it is.

And I think that's okay.

[unterhausen]

I don't think steel needs to get better either. Tbh, the difference between a frame made from vintage 531 and the best modern steels is not really that significant. Obviously I would rather have modern tubing. Except when I'm being nostalgic about tubing where you never knew what size it was going to be, like with 531 from the '70s.

In recent years I put a lot of miles on a 531 frame I built in 1980. It's a really nice bike. I just can't imagine improving much on that with another steel frame. I am riding a Spirit bike now, and I was riding a different Spirit frame before. I have no preference between the three.

[deluz]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

I don't think steel needs to get better either. Tbh, the difference between a frame made from vintage 531 and the best modern steels is not really that significant. Obviously I would rather have modern tubing. Except when I'm being nostalgic about tubing where you never knew what size it was going to be, like with 531 from the '70s.

In recent years I put a lot of miles on a 531 frame I built in 1980. It's a really nice bike. I just can't imagine improving much on that with another steel frame. I am riding a Spirit bike now, and I was riding a different Spirit frame before. I have no preference between the three.

My modern steel bike is made from 853 Pro Team OS tubing. It was made two years ago. I had a frame from the same builder built in 1975 that was 531c.
I can't really say there is much difference as far as stiffness and comfort.
The new frame was built to my own geometry and fits me much better so that is a plus. It is a tiny bit lighter and uses a 1-1/8" fork. I have heard that tubes with thinner walls "ride better" what ever that means. The other day I rode my Cannondale EVO. The amount road buzz and shock is noticeably greater. That could be as much from the geometry as the material. I plan to sell it and replace with another steel frame. I rode carbon bikes for decades and never thought I would be without a carbon bike but here we are.

[flying]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

But if riding five seconds per mile faster doesn't make any real difference to your enjoyment of the sport, steel is more than good enough as it is. ...........

Keep me supplied with chains, good tires, and other consumables and I'd happily ride off into the sunset for the rest of my cycling days.

Exactly

[zmalwo]

honesty if colnago can crimp their tubes on masters, i don't see why the tubes can't be hydro-formed and make an aero steel bike.