Modern steels- can they get any better?

[krooj]

Originally Posted by mhespenheide

I'd be delighted if there were a carbon frame that was light, not overly stiff, had that great combination of snappy but also a little flex, fit 32mm tires, and rim brakes. I don't mind some aero touches but external cabling is mandatory. Or at least not routed through the headset.

Anyone?

Beuller?

Beuller?

No?

Then I guess I'm continuing to ride metal for a while yet.

I do wonder if you could hydroform high-end steel.

An Aethos fits that bill if it fits you

[thegunner]

Originally Posted by krooj

An Aethos fits that bill if it fits you

Sign me up when a rim brake aethos exists

[ltwtsculler91]

Originally Posted by thegunner

Sign me up when a rim brake aethos exists

Just call Crumpton, or Hampsten. You’ll have a better bike even if it’s a few grams more it’ll still easily be as light as a disc aetheos.

[thegunner]

Originally Posted by ltwtsculler91

Just call Crumpton, or Hampsten. You’ll have a better bike even if it’s a few grams more it’ll still easily be as light as a disc aetheos.

i need another bike like i need a hole in my head

[tylercheung]

Originally Posted by Louis

The question in my mind is how much better do they need to be?

Yeah, shaped CF will be more aero than standard round-tube steel, and a bit lighter, but in the end, how significant are the differences and do they really matter. For me 99.99% of the time the answer is that steel is fine as it is today.

I think the whole hand wavy charade re "new groupset tech" by the big three to find the next big thing without coming up w/ anything truly useful is a sign that road bike tech (aside from anything that can defend against getting run over by a giant SUV) has mostly matured...

Maybe 3D printing lattice structures to further reduce weight or bump up str? Or maybe composite resin/carbon/steel mixes? dunno...

[KonaSS]

I relistened to the podcast myself, as I find it very interesting. And if you never do any type of riding for performance where you are comparing yourself to other riders, I 100% get it. Ride what you like and enjoy it.

To be clear, the podcast is a conversation about a broad range of cycling performance, most of which centers on aerodynamics. So no specific studies were mentioned. The original premise was to compare Nibali's 2014 TdF winning bike to today's bike, but then they sort of veer a little off topic talking generally about bikes.

It is unclear how much is wheels and how much is the frame, but he says that a "stupidly round tube bike" (note-his words not mine) and wheels costs about 100W at 45k/h

Semi aero considered frame and wheels would be 85W

A "good frame and wheels" would be 68W

And with the newest UCI regulations, a newly designed bike like the Simplon Pride 2 would be 55W.

If you were riding box section rims, add 15W to all the numbers above. He also notes that at first disc bikes were less aero than rim brake bikes. But discs allowed wheels shapes to change (mostly wider) which allowed more aero gains so that disc bikes bikes are now more aero than rim brake bikes.

You don't have to ride your bike at 28 mph to take advantage of aero features. During the podcast, he addresses the importance of aero to the everyday rider. He makes the case that it is a bigger advantage to us regular joes than it is to the Pros.

It is a bigger advantage if you are on the course longer. For instance, the pro does a century in 4 hours and you do it in 6 hours, that means you are benefiting the for a longer period of time. Meaning, if aero reduces the power needed by 3%, you get a full 6 hours of 3% reduction which could add up to meaningful time.

His second point to this was that the slower you are, the more you will feel the crosswind effect (what he called sailing) and that the more aero features matter.

He does touch on all things from tires, wheels, kit, helmets, bars, frames, positions. If you are at all interested in riding for performance, it is a great podcast.

[Spoker]

0.4 mm tube wall thickness makes a frame so prone to damage with tip overs or crashes. Carbon frames that are on the heavy ( but still way lighter) side are more robust despite what people think. Not even talking about corrosion effects. Steel is at the limit imo.

[hampco]

To butcher an old phrase: steel is like pizza - when it’s good, it’s really, really good. And when it’s not - it’s still pretty good.

[Wakatel_Luum]

Originally Posted by Spoker

0.4 mm tube wall thickness makes a frame so prone to damage with tip overs or crashes. Carbon frames that are on the heavy ( but still way lighter) side are more robust despite what people think. Not even talking about corrosion effects. Steel is at the limit imo.

As a note you do not see many people riding 30 year old carbon bikes much these days and unfortunately carbon frame design lacks that timeless persona without also taking into consideration the non visual voids and delams that are still prevalent in production frames even now. Steel frames are not without their issues.

[nmrt]

I see the lack of 30 year old carbon bikes another way. Unlike steel, where innovation has plateaued, carbon keeps improving. 2024 carbon bikes are better than 2023. Whereas in steel, why get a 2024 when it is just as good as the 2003?

Originally Posted by Wakatel_Luum

As a note you do not see many people riding 30 year old carbon bikes much these days and unfortunately carbon frame design lacks that timeless persona without also taking into consideration the non visual voids and delams that are still prevalent in production frames even now. Steel frames are not without their issues.

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by nmrt

I see the lack of 30 year old carbon bikes another way. Unlike steel, where innovation has plateaued, carbon keeps improving. 2024 carbon bikes are better than 2023. Whereas in steel, why get a 2024 when it is just as good as the 2003?

I don't know the timeline for the introduction and use of modern high strength steel in bikes, but the stuff like 953 seems a lot better material than 531. Dave Kirk has a blog post about old vs. new steels. This doesn't mean I don't love my 531 frame Bob Jackson but I suspect that a new steel frame would be even better. Of course, so are the modern Ti and carbon frames I have, so no need to add a modern steel frame!

[buddybikes]

Originally Posted by nmrt

why get a 2024 when it is just as good as the 2003?

Custom, fit for you, customized for you, colorized for you. Outside of Crumpton and similar, not avail in carbon molds

[nmrt]

Yes, I vividly remember that D. Kirk's post. It was eye opening. This is one reasons why I have refrained from buying the "older" steel bikes.

Originally Posted by NHAero

I don't know the timeline for the introduction and use of modern high strength steel in bikes, but the stuff like 953 seems a lot better material than 531. Dave Kirk has a blog post about old vs. new steels. This doesn't mean I don't love my 531 frame Bob Jackson but I suspect that a new steel frame would be even better. Of course, so are the modern Ti and carbon frames I have, so no need to add a modern steel frame!

[David Kirk]

I think comes down to the ability of tube makers to make thinner tubes reliably. The industry standard on wall thickness is +/- 10%…so back when the tubes had walls of 1.0mm or .9 mm this wasn’t a problem because even if the wall was at the lower end of the tolerance there was still enough wall to get the job done safely.

Contrast this to modern tubes where the walls are much thinner. I’ve been building with 953 in most of my bikes for a very long time. I often use tubes with .55/.35/.55 walls and one doesn’t need to be a rocket surgeon to understand that if you take 10% off the thin .35mm you end up with a very thin wall. If they could work out how to tighten that tolerance it would allow for a thinner, lighter and even sweeter riding tubeset.

The material strength is very high (and it will be hard to top) and I think that fine tuning the process of drawing the tubes into very thin walls with a tighter tolerance than +/- 10% will be the next break through. I’ve been using tubes this thin for over 15 years and I’ve not seen a single failure and I’m certain that with the super high material strength that a thinner wall will be possible….if they can make them.

dave

[deluz]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

I think comes down to the ability of tube makers to make thinner tubes reliably. The industry standard on wall thickness is +/- 10%…so back when the tubes had walls of 1.0mm or .9 mm this wasn’t a problem because even if the wall was at the lower end of the tolerance there was still enough wall to get the job done safely.

Contrast this to modern tubes where the walls are much thinner. I’ve been building with 953 in most of my bikes for a very long time. I often use tubes with .55/.35/.55 walls and one doesn’t need to be a rocket surgeon to understand that if you take 10% off the thin .35mm you end up with a very thin wall. If they could work out how to tighten that tolerance it would allow for a thinner, lighter and even sweeter riding tubeset.

The material strength is very high (and it will be hard to top) and I think that fine tuning the process of drawing the tubes into very thin walls with a tighter tolerance than +/- 10% will be the next break through. I’ve been using tubes this thin for over 15 years and I’ve not seen a single failure and I’m certain that with the super high material strength that a thinner wall will be possible….if they can make them.

dave

Reading all these posts about high end thin wall denting easier.
Since the material is much stronger, doesn't that mean the same dent resistance with thinner walls? Writing this as as owner of an 853 Pro Team OS frame.
I don't race anymore and don't plan to crash or tip it onto the corner of a brick building. I have owned 8 or more steel frames the years and never once dented one. Also owned carbon frames for decades and they never got cracked or damaged.