I'm going to start a fight for Christmas. Yes, I'm a Scrooge.
Keep in mind while you read this that I have five bikes that are in working order and I ride at least once in a while. I have two mountain bikes with aluminum frames, a custom hybrid (probably not like you imagine) with a steel frame, a road bike with a steel frame, and my most recent addition, a road bike with a carbon frame.
There is a small, but vocal, segment of cyclist that are hanging on to the belief that steel is still the best material for making bike frames. Their rallying cry is "steel is real." And I agree that a lot can still be said for steel, especially if you go custom. Custom titanium bikes are outrageously expensive and a true custom carbon bike doesn't exist, in my opinion.
But heres the thing, back in the early and even mid seventies, most, if not all, the bikes in the Tour de France were steel. There was a transition to aluminum and titanium, with none having any real dominance, and steel still hanging on by it's nails. Then there was a transition to carbon, and in (at least) the last several tours every single bike in the TDF has had a carbon fiber frame. Carbon has acheived total dominance, at least in the road racing world.
Why is this? Either there is some huge conspiracy that involves sponsors, team managers, riders, and even cycling publications, or there is a legitimate reason everyone is on carbon. If you think there is a conspiracy, remember that for everyone, winning is paramount. Winning furthers everyone's goals. No one wants to be on an inferior bike. If steel performed as well as carbon, there would be people riding them in the TDF. There aren't.
In my opinion, steel can't compete with carbon, at least in a racing forum, where every second and every once counts.
Now, here's my recomendation for reserecting the steel frame. Some frame makers made a stab at custom tube shapes, but none took it as far as it could be taken. How about: Oversized squarish down tubes. Small diameter seat stays. Flatened chain stays that are more virtically compliant while being more horizontally stiff. Curved tubes. Tapered headtubes. Tubes that are bigger at one end than the other, or flattened one way on one end and the other way on the other. In other words, copy carbon frame design, but taking steel's unique properties into account.
You would, hopefully, retain the graceful elegant lines of steel (huge, fat tubes are ugly and create wind drag), while gaining compliance and stiffness where needed.
If this doesn't start a good argument, I don't know what will.
Randy
P.S. You are all my brothers (and sisters) because we share a love. Merry Christmas!
Keep in mind while you read this that I have five bikes that are in working order and I ride at least once in a while. I have two mountain bikes with aluminum frames, a custom hybrid (probably not like you imagine) with a steel frame, a road bike with a steel frame, and my most recent addition, a road bike with a carbon frame.
There is a small, but vocal, segment of cyclist that are hanging on to the belief that steel is still the best material for making bike frames. Their rallying cry is "steel is real." And I agree that a lot can still be said for steel, especially if you go custom. Custom titanium bikes are outrageously expensive and a true custom carbon bike doesn't exist, in my opinion.
But heres the thing, back in the early and even mid seventies, most, if not all, the bikes in the Tour de France were steel. There was a transition to aluminum and titanium, with none having any real dominance, and steel still hanging on by it's nails. Then there was a transition to carbon, and in (at least) the last several tours every single bike in the TDF has had a carbon fiber frame. Carbon has acheived total dominance, at least in the road racing world.
Why is this? Either there is some huge conspiracy that involves sponsors, team managers, riders, and even cycling publications, or there is a legitimate reason everyone is on carbon. If you think there is a conspiracy, remember that for everyone, winning is paramount. Winning furthers everyone's goals. No one wants to be on an inferior bike. If steel performed as well as carbon, there would be people riding them in the TDF. There aren't.
In my opinion, steel can't compete with carbon, at least in a racing forum, where every second and every once counts.
Now, here's my recomendation for reserecting the steel frame. Some frame makers made a stab at custom tube shapes, but none took it as far as it could be taken. How about: Oversized squarish down tubes. Small diameter seat stays. Flatened chain stays that are more virtically compliant while being more horizontally stiff. Curved tubes. Tapered headtubes. Tubes that are bigger at one end than the other, or flattened one way on one end and the other way on the other. In other words, copy carbon frame design, but taking steel's unique properties into account.
You would, hopefully, retain the graceful elegant lines of steel (huge, fat tubes are ugly and create wind drag), while gaining compliance and stiffness where needed.
If this doesn't start a good argument, I don't know what will.
Randy
P.S. You are all my brothers (and sisters) because we share a love. Merry Christmas!
