Modern steels- can they get any better?

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by 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.

The issue is one of material hardness. Back when Colnago made those tube shapes the material was only slightly harder than warm butter. So they could draw a round tube, put it in a die and squeeze it and get the shape they wanted.

If someone wanted to hydro form a modern high strength steel such as 853 or 953 they would have a very tough time of it. This means that to draw steel into a shape similar to what we see on carbon aero bikes that they would need to use a lower strength material and then use a thicker wall to compensate.

I don't see any of this as impossible and at the same time I see very little market for such a bike.

dave

[Waldo62]

I'd be really interested to find out whether there are more medium+ end (Ultegra level or higher) steel than titanium bikes being sold. My guess is steel over ti.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Waldo62]

Snip:

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.

Nitpicking: If it starts dumping the moment the faster rider gets home and the slower rider gets back 10 minutes later, completely soaked and freezing -- that would seriously impact the latter's enjoyment of the sport.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by Waldo62

Snip:


Nitpicking: If it starts dumping the moment the faster rider gets home and the slower rider gets back 10 minutes later, completely soaked and freezing -- that would seriously impact the latter's enjoyment of the sport.

At five seconds per mile? 10 minutes? You're 120 miles away from home and it starts dumping rain and you don't have any bailout options?

[unterhausen]

I don't pay attention to bike industry trends, but a couple of years ago, steel was making a comeback in upper mid-range bikes. There was a slight up-charge over the same bike in aluminum.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

At five seconds per mile? 10 minutes? You're 120 miles away from home and it starts dumping rain and you don't have any bailout options?

Check your math, I think he meant you were 12 miles from home when it starts dumping rain. Or 1.2 miles?
Shee-it, my math sucks so what do I know?
I did understand the premise though...I think.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

The issue is one of material hardness. Back when Colnago made those tube shapes the material was only slightly harder than warm butter. So they could draw a round tube, put it in a die and squeeze it and get the shape they wanted.

If someone wanted to hydro form a modern high strength steel such as 853 or 953 they would have a very tough time of it. This means that to draw steel into a shape similar to what we see on carbon aero bikes that they would need to use a lower strength material and then use a thicker wall to compensate.

I don't see any of this as impossible and at the same time I see very little market for such a bike.

dave

I saw a cut cross section of a Specialized Smartweld aluminum hydroformed frame at the headset junction with the top and downtubes. I was not impressed. The wall thickness at the welds was thin and the weld was not full penetration. The hydroforming basically eliminated the tube butting. Those hydroformed tubes look cool, but I don't think the frame is as strong. It must be really hard to control the wall thickness when you balloon a tube out like that.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

Check your math, I think he meant you were 12 miles from home when it starts dumping rain. Or 1.2 miles?
Shee-it, my math sucks so what do I know?
I did understand the premise though...I think.

I totally understand the premise. But if there's only a 5 second difference per mile, a delta of ten minutes is 600 seconds. 600 divided by five is 120. 120 miles.

If you're 12 miles from home, a delta of 5 seconds per mile is 12*5=60 seconds.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

I totally understand the premise. But if there's only a 5 second difference per mile, a delta of ten minutes is 600 seconds. 600 divided by five is 120. 120 miles.

If you're 12 miles from home, a delta of 5 seconds per mile is 12*5=60 seconds.

So, if the riders travel at roughly ~20 mph, then at a difference of 5 sec. per mile the the slower rider would be 10 minutes and 3 1/3 miles behind the faster rider at the end of this 6 hour ride. Or if the faster rider didn't take up 10 minutes before they start riding explaining how his bike was 5 sec. per mile faster, they would both finish before it started raining.