Modern steel frames: weight, stiffness, and ride quality

[callmeishmael]

One of my 2 main road bikes has a steel frame: it’s Reynolds 853/853 pro. The frame (painted, with a seatclamp and derailleur hanger) weighs in at ~1900g, in a ~53cm (custom geometry), with quite a layered and hence heavy paintjob (it was apparently ~1650g unpainted).

A riding buddy of mine was admiring it a while back, and after saying how good it looked, asked me what I thought of it and how it was to ride. The gist of my reply was that it handles well, fits well, looks great, and the process was rewarding, but it doesn’t have quite the springy or supple feel I’d hoped for. To describe it as ‘dead’ would be an overstatement, but it’s not lively in the way I’d hoped.

For context, it's probably worth noting I'm 155lbs at 5ft 10 (71kg/178cm) and a reasonably strong club rider, but certainly no watt monster and I don't race.

A bit of a back-and-forth then ensued (before we got distracted by a tough climb) about whether too many modern steel builders are trying to imitate carbon bikes in terms of stiffness and losing some of the material’s unique qualities in doing so, or actually whether this whole idea of steel ride feel is a bit of a myth/rose-tinted spectacles/projection exercise. I'm also sure I recall steel frames (and not massively high end ones, either) coming in comfortably sub 4lbs/1800g in the mid 90s; it seems a bit odd to my mind that many modern steel frames are heavier than that, unless these frames are being made much stiffer.

So that leads me to my questions, especially as there are quite a few people on here whom I suspect know a lot about this.

My basic contention is my frame is a touch overbuilt for a rider of my weight, and as such loses a bit of character. My riding partner's contention is that a uniquely steel ride feel is a myth, and I'm looking for something that will/would never really be there. I don't agree, but I could be wrong, and I’d be grateful for the hive wisdom.

First, are many modern steel frames overbuilt? Next, do they lose something in being so, or is that subtle flow and spring (something that is arguably the holy grail of choosing to build/ride steel) actually a bit of a myth or psychological invention? Last, if it is agreed that such a ride quality is possible without making a frame very fragile, how does one go about getting it? What sort of conversations would you have with a builder, and what tubing might they use?

[Peter P.]

Does your bike have a steel or carbon fork? A carbon fork could be the contributor to what you're feeling.

Tubing diameter has much more effect on stiffness than tube wall thickness. A smaller diameter tubed frame say, of the "old" 1" standard, might give you the spring your are seeking.

A custom builder interprets your desires and mixes them with their own philosophy. Maybe in your case the mix didn't work.

Now, if you went back to that builder and said, "This frame you built didn't have the feel I was looking for." they would have a benchmark to work off of and know which direction to head to build a frame with the characteristics you seek.

Steel does have a different feel than the other materials and yes; there was and probably still is a thing to try to build steel frames to feel like carbon. It can result in poorly riding frames.

For what it's worth, I weigh 130lbs. and had a Salsa Ala Carte 853 ATB frame, with a rigid fork. I couldn't tell squat whether it was too stiff or too soft. I had no complaints about the ride at all.

I also currently have a custom frame built of unknown tubing with the newer 1 1/8" "standard tubes (slightly oversized from the 1" standard) with a steel fork and don't notice any harshness or deadness.

[Tychom]

I had a Ritchey Road Logic II a few years ago and that would have what I'd call that steel springiness to it. I don't know all the tube diameters but I believe they were fairly classic (as of the 90s) - 28,6 top and seat tubes, 31.7 down tube and 1 1/8 steerer. I'm fairly sure that weighed under 1900g for the largest size and I'm 78km/192cm, so your frame sounds quite heavy,

I have an 853 OS lugged frameset that also has that spring in it. The tube dimensions are the same but there's also quite a bit different between the construction methods - lugged vs tig.

I replaced the Ritchey with a custom tig frame that has a similar overall ride quality but none of that springiness - this one has larger tubing - 31,7 seat tube, and I believe top tube, and likely a 35mm down tube.

I believe this last frameset is the lightest of the three but it's also certainly the stiffest among them.

No doubt there's lots of small things affecting the overall result but I'd hazard a guess the largest factor you're going to find is the tube diameters.

[carlucci1106]

I've had the Ala Carte w/ TT OX Plat
A couple Bianchis with Deda Zero Uno/Tre tubing
A CSI with presumably 853 Lugged
A Black Mountain Cycles with butted Cro-Mo
A Ritchey MTB with magic sauce or something

I have never ridden a modern OS-tubed bike (like Spirit/Life/S3), other than a Fairdale Goodship, TIG'd with OS Cro-Mo tubes.

The Fairdale did have a stiffer ride, and feel more direct/sharp in handling (like a carbon or AL bike, but felt a bit less "springy" (than my steel bikes). I enjoyed the short ride because it seemed like it leapt forward, had power transfer that I'm not used to. But did not seem completely dead either

I believe from reading DK's blogs/comments about stiffness, and many discussions and articles on so-called 'planing' that the springy feel you are feeling is a slight amount of lateral flex at the BB/C-stay/Downtube junctions. A little flex here does not hurt, and feels like the bike "works with you" or "undulates" over choppy terrain.

I do believe a more wispy front triangle leads to lighter frame weight and enhances this feeling, but I believe-- going in the other direction, a bike can have too stiff a platform, and still be uber-lightweight, due to the much thinner tubing. A watt-monster, or a heavier rider might be able to induce flex on this same design, and that frame feels "springy."

I would imagine a builder could use the OS Tubes, and adjust butt lengths according to your size/weight/riding style, and still extract the "springy" quality.

[Marvinlungwitz]

Probably the paint.

You should always pick the color(s) based upon which ride qualities you want.

[vespasianus]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

One of my 2 main road bikes has a steel frame: it’s Reynolds 853/853 pro. The frame (painted, with a seatclamp and derailleur hanger) weighs in at ~1900g, in a ~53cm (custom geometry), with quite a layered and hence heavy paintjob (it was apparently ~1650g unpainted).

A riding buddy of mine was admiring it a while back, and after saying how good it looked, asked me what I thought of it and how it was to ride. The gist of my reply was that it handles well, fits well, looks great, and the process was rewarding, but it doesn’t have quite the springy or supple feel I’d hoped for. To describe it as ‘dead’ would be an overstatement, but it’s not lively in the way I’d hoped.

For context, it's probably worth noting I'm 155lbs at 5ft 10 (71kg/178cm) and a reasonably strong club rider, but certainly no watt monster and I don't race.

A bit of a back-and-forth then ensued (before we got distracted by a tough climb) about whether too many modern steel builders are trying to imitate carbon bikes in terms of stiffness and losing some of the material’s unique qualities in doing so, or actually whether this whole idea of steel ride feel is a bit of a myth/rose-tinted spectacles/projection exercise. I'm also sure I recall steel frames (and not massively high end ones, either) coming in comfortably sub 4lbs/1800g in the mid 90s; it seems a bit odd to my mind that many modern steel frames are heavier than that, unless these frames are being made much stiffer.

So that leads me to my questions, especially as there are quite a few people on here whom I suspect know a lot about this.

My basic contention is my frame is a touch overbuilt for a rider of my weight, and as such loses a bit of character. My riding partner's contention is that a uniquely steel ride feel is a myth, and I'm looking for something that will/would never really be there. I don't agree, but I could be wrong, and I’d be grateful for the hive wisdom.

First, are many modern steel frames overbuilt? Next, do they lose something in being so, or is that subtle flow and spring (something that is arguably the holy grail of choosing to build/ride steel) actually a bit of a myth or psychological invention? Last, if it is agreed that such a ride quality is possible without making a frame very fragile, how does one go about getting it? What sort of conversations would you have with a builder, and what tubing might they use?

Most bikes are over built and for steel bikes, things like a large tapered head tube, T47 BB, large steel seat masts (!), and big thick seat stays are over-kill and negatively impact the ride. These are copies from carbon bikes and look cool. The move to fat, big tubes, negatively impacts steel. At 155lbs, you would be very happy on a 1" diameter steel tubed bike, with a nice curved steel fork. For your bike, I wonder if the back end is also over built. Lot of companies tended to use any old tubing for the stays and that often is way over built and gives a harsh ride.

I was listening to an interview with Tom Ritchey and he was lamenting the demise of steel technologies. Honestly, I thought he was a debbie downer. But he has a point. Most steel bikes makers are not pushing the material. Sure, it is a great way to get a custom bike and I would argue fit and geometry trumps most everything but still, nobody is pushing steel bike development (except for a few people). You could easily say the same thing about Ti. They are just making a nicer version of the same designed bike that were found 20 years ago. OK, they might have disc brakes and room for fatter tires, but still, not much different.

[buddybikes]

Wheels and tire pressure greatly affect feel.

[oldpotatoe]

Next, do they lose something in being so, or is that subtle flow and spring (something that is arguably the holy grail of choosing to build/ride steel) actually a bit of a myth or psychological invention? Last, if it is agreed that such a ride quality is possible without making a frame very fragile, how does one go about getting it? What sort of conversations would you have with a builder, and what tubing might they use?

Since we are discussing 'feel', and such, which is 100% subjective. I don't think there is any answer.

I rode with a guy who had a DeRosa Primato, I rode my MXLeader..similar groups, both had tubulars. I think my MXLeader is a very 'bright' ride..The other guy thought his Primate was too..we switched bikes on a ride..same sizes, same pedals...I thought his Primato felt dead and lifeless compared to my Merckx. he thought my Merckx 'felt too stiff'.

When in the trenches, we sponsored a race team..sponsored by Serotta. Two guys got IDENTICAL bikes, Legend Ti..same wheels...same size..they went for first rides..One guy said it was beautiful, great ride...comfortable. The other said it was 'way too stiff, harsh, uncomfortable'...so......

Last story...finally found a Merckx Century..same size as my MXLeader...never rode one but read many tales about how great they were. Already had a MXLeader(which I love, never sell it)..Got it, built it, rode it once, stripped it and sold it back to the guy I bought it from(a Paceline dude)...just didn't like the ride. Felt vague, kinda 'dead, no fun...so....

[ldamelio]

I think your hypothesis about your bike is correct. Echoing what others have said: steel works best in the classic format. Oversize tubes, T47, etc just make for a heavy, stiff and maybe dead ride. One can overthink it prescribing their wishes to a custom builder. And the builder can overthink it, too.

Ti and Al each, in the right hands, each make a great bike in alternate tube shapes and thicknesses. Get a classic steel bike in some good Columbus tubing by one of the masters and you will see that steel retains it's magic. You will be giving up a few watts to a carbon aero contemporary bike, but unless you're racing at the sharp end cat 3 or higher, that shouldn't matter.

[fignon's barber]

The generic criticism of the old aluminum frames was that they were too stiff and didn't have the springy feeling of steel because of the thin large diameter tubing. Modern steel tubing like Spirit is also thinner and larger in diameter in an effort to be stiffer and lighter like carbon can be. The "art" of the modern frame builder is to balance between the springy feeling of old and the modern demand for stiffer and lighter. The easiest way to replicate what you seek is to try a bike with small diameter thicker tubing like Columbus SL (like that nice blue Cinelli over in the Production Bikes department). The more "thread the needle" approach is to seek out a master builder who get provide the feel you want.

[rccardr]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Since we are discussing 'feel', and such, which is 100% subjective. I don't think there is any answer.

Last story...finally found a Merckx Century..same size as my MXLeader...never rode one but read many tales about how great they were. Already had a MXLeader(which I love, never sell it)..Got it, built it, rode it once, stripped it and sold it back to the guy I bought it from(a Paceline dude)...just didn't like the ride. Felt vague, kinda 'dead, no fun...so....

Point well made. That 'Century', in fact, turned out to be a mis-marked SLX Corsa Extra (I was the guy who sold it to you and bought it back). But the interesting thing is, for me it was one of the nicest rides I ever owned. All day rider, plenty of 100-milers on it, traveled all over the US with it. Only sold it because I was rationalizing the stable and have another, fancier, earlier Merckx.

[charliedid]

Forks matter.

[pdonk]

I think the answer is it depends - I have 4 steel bikes, all ride differently.

They are all within a similar size range -

1) Track bike 58 cm square- made from True Temper S3 with shaped tubes and a steel fork - when I ride it fixed on the road it feels very springy and lively - likely due to the fork being a tad underbuilt for that use. Main tubes are definitely oversized - bioval downtube and oval top tube, stays are what I would consider normal sized but configured into a triple triangle /wishbone. This was a made to order stock frame.

2) Road bike short (55st and long 58tt) - unknown mix of TT and Columbus - not very over sized, with a carbon fork and carbon seatmast - custom sized and build for me - I expect they chose the tubes based on how I described what I wanted.

3) Mtb (21 st 24.5 tt) - Reynolds 853 mix of standard size and over sixed tuning - stock made to order - This bike has the least torsional rigidity and I can make the head tube flex out of line and wobble without trying. As a mtb the rear is very stiff.

4) Mtb (19 st 23 tt) -- a mix of tange prestige/tange concept - this bike is the stiffest of all of the them - the fork is a vintage composite type (steel legs bonded to an aluminum crown). no wobble, no give anywhere, yet the tubes seem to be the smallest of all of them. I think it is because of the stout fork.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by Marvinlungwitz

Probably the paint.

You should always pick the color(s) based upon which ride qualities you want.

Its true. Just as in skiing, always pick the red one, because its faster.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by charliedid

Forks matter.

Ha, yeah. Maybe. I have two steel bikes, one a Serotta Colorado III, made in '02, and a Strong, made in '13. After buying the Strong, which was a copy of my Serotta (I sent the frame to Strong, telling him, just copy it, bypassing his extensive custom CS process) I decided to rebuild the Serotta with the same group and wheels as the newer Strong, so I had the closest thing to twin bikes I could own. (Fraternal?) For the first season, they even had the same tires. They feel slightly different, though. I like the Strong a bit more. But, it could be the fork. The Serotta has the best Reynolds of it's time, and the Strong has an Enve, engineered ten years later in carbon development. I'll never know, I guess.