Best riding steel frames attributes? Geo/Tubing/Build?

[Asudef]

I know asking this is like trying to predict the weather but in terms of builders, specific models, tubesets etc what have your experiences been?

My Fuso (FR1 I believe, it's the 30th Anniversary one) did the job until I took a friends SLX tubing Pinarello out on a quick spin and noticed the difference. It felt livelier, smoother and more luxurious. I'm not sure how much of that is attributed to tubing, geometry, or build (Fuso has CXP33s with mid/low end tires) but that is probably the ride I want most in a steel bike.

I've owned an early Motta w/o the bendy stays which felt similar to the Fuso, maybe a bit more flexy.
On the other spectrum, my Surly Cross Check is really harsh, almost to the point where I don't enjoy riding it.
I remember really liking the Davidson Impulse I rode which had Tange Prestige tubing but I've heard that a lot of it is attributed to the fork/fork crown?
I've also ridden a True Temper Platinum tubing bike and it was very stiff like my Surly but more supple and forgiving although it was from a local builder who made it for a racer.

Maybe I just like the feel of Italian bikes/geometry better rather than the tubing? Pretty much all the ones I've ridden were on box rims usually of the period so thats consistent.

Just want to hear people's thoughts. I want to make a move onto a Serotta too but haven't had a chance to ride one.

[AgilisMerlin]

As long as my previous bikes looked proper and were adjusted correctly, I just got used to the ride.

My bikes, my wifes, my kids bikes float all over the house. Just a reminder to get on them.

You mentioned above some respectable bicycles. I would probably ride them all, if in my size. I have fallen prey to what i do not have is better; so, I am FOS when it comes to frame envy. But from my experience, I am just going to buy nos replacement components and keep what i have. for now

My masi is comfortable, stiff, and rides like most of the steel frames i have had in the past. Just put a alphaq cs10 fork in it with steel steerer. Looks nice, but nothing special.

.02 cent

[Asudef]

I totally agree with you, if I could be happy with one bike or three I'd be a happier man.

To borrow Jan Heine's term, planing is probably what I'm after. I may just borrow my friends bike on a longer ride to see how much more I like to to spend the time and effort to pursue it.

Did you go from the steel Masi fork to the AlphaQ? If so how did you like it? I've been looking at the same line of forks.

[Peter P.]

When comparing steels, the various brands and models OF HIGH END STEELS will not make a discernable difference in ride quality.

Neither will the tubing wall thickness affect ride quality significantly.

Tubing outer diameter will have the greatest impact on stiffness, but that doesn't necessarily mean stiffer is better.

In my mind, geometry will affect the ride quality more than any other factor. All the high tier steels of the last 20 years are so close as to be the same.

For instance, your Fuso was spec'd with a very low fork rake/high trail figure, far from average. I think that explains the difference you felt vs. the Pinarello. Pinarello's had very average front end specs.

To me, there's no such thing as an "Italian" geometry/British geometry/American geometry. There's just geometry and playing with the variables can tune the ride in many ways, most of which are rideable. It just matters what you prefer.

If you can find the specs on the Pinarello or the Davidson, perhaps you could get a custom framebuilder to copy them. Otherwise, you can't go wrong with a Serotta; their stock frames were meant to please the largest cross section of riders so you won't find anything esoteric or niche there.

[Earl Gray]

In order of my favorite after 500+ miles. No real clue as to why, just a feel.

1. Gunnar

2. Specialized

3. Sachs

4. Schwinn Le tour

[Asudef]

Hmm, I may measure up his Pinarello to see. I wasn't aware the Fuso had the short rake high trail hmm, I'll have to look into that. No wonder I have such trouble riding no hands on it though it feels pretty great carving down hills.

Specs on the Davidson are probably floating online somewhere, maybe I should start experimenting with forks.

[wallymann]

Originally Posted by Peter P.

When comparing steels, the various brands and models OF HIGH END STEELS will not make a discernable difference in ride quality.

Neither will the tubing wall thickness affect ride quality significantly.

Tubing outer diameter will have the greatest impact on stiffness, but that doesn't necessarily mean stiffer is better.

despite all the marketing hoopla, for modern bicycles since the '80s that use high-strength steels...steel is steel, it's density and modulus of elasticity are fixed regardless of which high-zoot alloy your tubeset may have. the teensy % of alloying agents DO NOT materially affect steel's density or modulus of elasticity. on this we agree!

when it comes to the physical properties of tube-sets, the single biggest factor that affects ride quality is tube diameter. however, the next biggest factor is wall thickness -- which contradicts your statement "Neither will the tubing wall thickness affect ride quality significantly".

get on 2 bikes back to back, one with columbus SL and the other with SP (or the reynolds equivalents 531 and 501 for that matter). identical tubing diameter and frame construction. the only difference being the thicker walls of SP (or 501), and you WILL notice the stiffness that comes from the thicker walls.

Originally Posted by Peter P.

In my mind, geometry will affect the ride quality more than any other factor. All the high tier steels of the last 20 years are so close as to be the same.

both of these points are 100% correct.

so in descending order of impact on ride quality:
1. frame geometry (big effect -- angles, wheelbase, etc)
2. tubeset geometry (moderate effect -- diameter, wall thickness, shaping, butting, etc)
3. frame construction (small effect -- lugged, tigged, fillet-brazed, etc)
4. tubeset metallurgy (trivial effect -- cyclex, nivachrom, chrome-moly, etc)

that said, all of these things are interrelated and connected in many ways. modern high-zoot steels have other properties which allow a builder to "get away" with thinner walls so you can increase the tubing diameter w/o adding excessive weight which can change the frame's overall ride-quality in some meaningful/desireable way.

[Dave Wages]

Originally Posted by wallymann

despite all the marketing hoopla, for modern bicycles since the '80s that use high-strength steels...steel is steel, it's density and modulus of elasticity are fixed regardless of which high-zoot alloy your tubeset may have. the teensy % of alloying agents DO NOT materially affect steel's density or modulus of elasticity. on this we agree!

when it comes to the physical properties of tube-sets, the single biggest factor that affects ride quality is tube diameter. however, the next biggest factor is wall thickness -- which contradicts your statement "Neither will the tubing wall thickness affect ride quality significantly".

get on 2 bikes back to back, one with columbus SL and the other with SP (or the reynolds equivalents 531 and 501 for that matter). identical tubing diameter and frame construction. the only difference being the thicker walls of SP (or 501), and you WILL notice the stiffness that comes from the thicker walls.



both of these points are 100% correct.

so in descending order of impact on ride quality:
1. frame geometry (big effect -- angles, wheelbase, etc)
2. tubeset geometry (moderate effect -- diameter, wall thickness, shaping, butting, etc)
3. frame construction (small effect -- lugged, tigged, fillet-brazed, etc)
4. tubeset metallurgy (trivial effect -- cyclex, nivachrom, chrome-moly, etc)

that said, all of these things are interrelated and connected in many ways. modern high-zoot steels have other properties which allow a builder to "get away" with thinner walls so you can increase the tubing diameter w/o adding excessive weight which can change the frame's overall ride-quality in some meaningful/desireable way.

Excellent post, I'll only add one often overlooked thing, components. Many folks really overlook the impact that wheels, tires, tire pressure and other variables can affect the ride of a bike. Honestly, I feel like most "reviews" in the major bike magazines are really indirect reviews of the parts hung on the bike rather than the frame and fork. I don't blame them, logistically, they'd need to disassemble every bike, build it up with a "control" set of parts and then compare the frame without outside influence, but I think we all know this just isn't going to happen.

I put this link out there a month of so ago on another thread, but it seems apropos to this discussion as well. The Magnificent Seven Way back in 1996, Bicycle Guide did an article with 7 frames built with 7 different types of Columbus tubing that were commonly used at that time. Every bike was built with identical geometry, wheels, spoke tension, tire pressure, etc... Very interesting read if you've got the time.

I answer questions all the time about "the ride of stainless", or something similar, and it all boils down to marketing hype, as long as the steel tubes are the same diameter and wall thickness, they ride exactly the same. What you get with high strength modern steel tubing is the ability to draw it to thinner gauges and much higher strength and fatigue life than older non heat treated tubes. So, if you rode an SLX bike back in the day with .9/.6/.9 standard gauge tubes, a "modern" bike with oversize or double oversize tubes could be built with .7/.4/.7 walls or thinner, and it'll be as stiff, and most likely lighter than the old SLX bike. That, and it's less likely to fatigue and crack over the life of the bike.

Hope folks find that helpful.
Dave

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Dave Wages

I don't blame them, logistically, they'd need to disassemble every bike, build it up with a "control" set of parts and then compare the frame without outside influence, but I think we all know this just isn't going to happen.

Dave, not sure comparative tests should happen like that anyway; even if it could. A "control" set of parts would suggest that all bike framesets would react equally to the same add on parts, and they very likely wouldn’t. A stiff frame should react differently to wheel stiffness than a more flexible frame, and so on. If "control" components are held constant they may accentuate one frameset while lessen another. And while it would point out that both frames are different it wouldn’t determine which is better than the other.

There are just too many variables to compare accurately. Even if each frame was tested with multiple components, wheels, and tires to determine which one worked best with each tested frame, it would still remain the subjective judgment of the tester. And if the final buyer/rider is substantially of different size, weight, experience, or has specific needs, all the reported data is even less relevant.

[Elefantino]

However Dave Kirk answers this.

[v531xc]

Originally Posted by Dave Wages

I put this link out there a month of so ago on another thread, but it seems apropos to this discussion as well. The Magnificent Seven Way back in 1996, Bicycle Guide did an article with 7 frames built with 7 different types of Columbus ...

Dave, just adjusted the link for you.

[Dave Wages]

Originally Posted by v531xc

Dave, just adjusted the link for you.

Thanks.

[Dave Wages]

Originally Posted by Chance

Dave, not sure comparative tests should happen like that anyway; even if it could. A "control" set of parts would suggest that all bike framesets would react equally to the same add on parts, and they very likely wouldn’t. A stiff frame should react differently to wheel stiffness than a more flexible frame, and so on. If "control" components are held constant they may accentuate one frameset while lessen another. And while it would point out that both frames are different it wouldn’t determine which is better than the other.

There are just too many variables to compare accurately. Even if each frame was tested with multiple components, wheels, and tires to determine which one worked best with each tested frame, it would still remain the subjective judgment of the tester. And if the final buyer/rider is substantially of different size, weight, experience, or has specific needs, all the reported data is even less relevant.

I agree, and I'm not proposing that this is the answer, just that parts affect the ride of bikes quite a bit more than folks sometimes acknowledge. My point is that trying to quantify the ride of frame A vs. frame B is made very difficult because of not only the differences in the frame geometry, tubing, etc., but also because of the parts on each respective frame.

There are certainly lots of subjective opinions on bikes, that's for sure.

Dave

[Fivethumbs]

I can make my main steel bike feel completely different by putting my 32 3X Open Pros on and then changing them out for some low count 24 aero spoke rims. The 32 spoke wheels are much less harsh. I believe wheels really do have an impact.

Having said that, I have two steel frames with almost identical tube sets ride ride differently even with the same wheels. The one with the longer top tube and shallower seat angle is smoother/less harsh. I feel as though that one rides the smoothest because it has a greater ability to flex and absorb shock.

[AndreasM]

That Magnificent Seven article is great. Between older frames, like an MXL and newer Spirit/Life type situations, is there something lost in the newer frames, even though their stiffness and lightness are superior?