Modern steels- can they get any better?

[krooj]

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

This poses an interesting question: are you taking calipers to these tubes and binning those out of tolerance enough to compromise durability? Put another way, does Mr. Kirk have a stash of weight-weenie tubes kicking around?

[Wakatel_Luum]

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 agree with steel tech plateauing and carbon evolving still but my point was most steel frames date better with a more conservative profile where as with many carbon frames they go out of fashion very quickly. Steel bikes seem to age well so to speak.
Exceptions to this in carbomn being Appleman, Crumpton, some Colnago's etc.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by Wakatel_Luum

I agree with steel tech plateauing and carbon evolving still but my point was most steel frames date better with a more conservative profile where as with many carbon frames they go out of fashion very quickly. Steel bikes seem to age well so to speak.
Exceptions to this in carbon being Appleman, Crumpton, some Colnago's etc.

In one sense, though, that's because steel is already outdated or unfashionable. Classic, of course, but not contemporary.

[Louis]

At rest stops I sometimes stand next to the bike (not straddling it) lean it over a little bit, and "sit" on the top tube. But that's on normal bikes, not the hyper-light stuff some folks ride today.

Can most cyclists still do that with the "new" steel tubes, or do you have to be a tiny 135 lb climber to even dare?

Personally, I think if you can't sit on the TT, then the tubes are just too thin.

[weisan]

Originally Posted by Louis

At rest stops I sometimes stand next to the bike (not straddling it) lean it over a little bit, and "sit" on the top tube. But that's on normal bikes, not the hyper-light stuff some folks ride today.

Can most cyclists still do that with the "new" steel tubes, or do you have to be a tiny 135 lb climber to even dare?

Personally, I think if you can't sit on the TT, then the tubes are just too thin.

For me, it must be able to withstand clamping in the top tube on my workstand.

[MikeD]

My steel Ritchey was leaning against a pole and the bike fell over and put a small dent in the top tube. IMO, the tubing is already too thin to resist denting.

[Dadoflam]

I love custom steel and Ti because of the human process - of designing and making. I transferred from carbon to steel when carbon bikes were at their lightest about 10 years ago.. I quickly discovered weight has little bearing compared to fit and feel. Steel bikes will continue to improve in their customisation - the ability to be fine tuned to the individual. I am awaiting delivery of my second Baum 12 years after my first. The process of design and fabrication to suit my specific body dynamics has developed noticeably in the interim. The ability to tune the frame components and create custom shapes through 3D printing can only continue. There is plenty of life ahead yet for steel.

[Mark McM]

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.

Trek Emonda SLR fits your requirements. It's even available in two fit geometries (H1 Race and H2 Endurance):

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...olorCode=black

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...olorCode=black

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Remember Steelman? He used French made high strength aerospace Excel (sp?) tubing. Didn't work out too well.

What happened with Steeman frames?

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

What happened with Steeman frames?

An "l" was added

[unterhausen]

I have never built with one of the stainless tubes, but my bikes I have made from Columbus spirit with .45mm center section seem to resist denting pretty well. I don't think most of us are going to do anything to a top tube by sitting on it either. I'm not sure that can be said for carbon.

Denting/buckling are affected by strength, so a higher strength tube should be able to resist better. It's not a linear elastic process. I think a lot of the vintage 531 bikes were made with .8/.6/.8 tubes or English unit equivalent. They had lots of choices you could order though.

[hokoman]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

What happened with Steeman frames?

https://www.steelmanrugs.com/about

He's selling rugs now. I bet it's way more lucrative and less stressful. I had one of his stage race bikes when I was living in the bay area - it was a nice bike.

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by deluz

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.

The dent resistance of the tube is related to its hardness and ductility and tubes like 953 are very resistant to denting. In all the years I've been working with this stuff I've never seen or heard of a dented tube. It's an amazing material.

dave

[ridethecliche]

I'm just thinking of a future where steel bikes get the reputation for dented tubes like cannondales circa the caad8/9.

Classic proportions, light weight, dent prone.

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

The dent resistance of the tube is related to its hardness and ductility and tubes like 953 are very resistant to denting. In all the years I've been working with this stuff I've never seen or heard of a dented tube. It's an amazing material.

dave

I always thought 953 was the perfect steel tube. Very hard and very thin but few people seemed to use it - favoring the XCR stuff.

With that said, I thought Reynolds stopped making 953 tubes?