Steel is better?



tingle_wayne said:
Why do other people like steel so much?
Click to expand...
Because they haven't yet upgraded to Carbon. ;)

I rode steel for a long time and also convinced myself that it was better. Changed to Carbon and won't be going back to steel now (unless I win the lottery and get a steel commuter bike).
 
Wheelist: ya got it right, dude...the man secretly lusts after Steel...how could ANYBODY love carbon? OK, my carbon forks on my OCR1 prove that Carbon is very compliant and comfortable.
But it has a limited life, and constant cyclical loading and stresses will cause it to fail. One day it will crack, Bottom Bracket shell, head tube, wherever, but it will go. Carbon is fine if you are in a pro team and have a new bike handed to you each year. Most of us mortals cannot afford the luxury of changing bikes almost as often as we wear out a front tyre...!!!!
 
Cannonadale keeps trying to make aluminum alloys that ride as resilient as Chromoly but they never can quite do it. Carbon is strong but not as strong as steel and has a dead feel to it. Bottom line steel is stronger and rides better than either of them just not as fast up hills 2lbs heavier not a big deal unless you are an elite rider.
 
wheelist said:
Because it gives.

.
Click to expand...
its the age old question...what gives?

i have ridden a steel bike and an alu bike for many years...

steel gives. It is flexible and isnt so prone to metal fatigue the way stiff heat treated alu is. Of course a lot of your power is lost (absorbed) in the flexible steel frame.

So the upshot is steel is comfortable and aluminium is responsive and harsh.

Comfortable riders can win races, but less power is required with alu. Beer and whisky.

I need a sandwich.
 
All this discussion is very interesting, not having really paid much attention to the scientific differences, but I agree that it comes down to what you like. I have an aluminum road bike that is light fast and responsive. It also kills my neck, shoulders and lower back. I like it enough to upgrade the drive train this winter and overall my rides have improved. I also have an older mtn bike, converted into a street bike that is ChrMo and comparitevely heavy as hell. But at the end of a ride, say twenty miles average, the only thing really sore are my legs. Also at 220lbs (and decreasing from 260) I worry about material fatigue. It's taught me to ride smarter, to look out for road debris and nasty holes and bumps. I've been slowly reconditioning an '83 Trek sport road bike (T500) and have to say that the ride so far has been solid. They have their differences for sure. But its good to have a choice, depending on the need and desire of the day. Side note: the gearing on the converted mtn bike actually make the climbs faster as well as easier than the road gearing, weight not withstanding. Keep the info coming..............
 
Aussie Steve said:
Wheelist: ya got it right, dude...the man secretly lusts after Steel...how could ANYBODY love carbon? OK, my carbon forks on my OCR1 prove that Carbon is very compliant and comfortable.
But it has a limited life, and constant cyclical loading and stresses will cause it to fail. One day it will crack, Bottom Bracket shell, head tube, wherever, but it will go. Carbon is fine if you are in a pro team and have a new bike handed to you each year. Most of us mortals cannot afford the luxury of changing bikes almost as often as we wear out a front tyre...!!!!
Click to expand...
Wow you sound like a real expert on materials there.

I've had a few carbon frames, my only problem with any of them was a creaking BB shell (because I got one of the first ones before they perfected the bonding agent). It was of course replaced under warranty, and I fully expect the replacement to last indefinitely.

Then there's my carbon mtn bike, which has literally been wrecked hundreds of times, into trees, rocks, etc. It has scratches and gouges and a good section of the drive-side chainstay is missing from repeated chainsuck, but unfortunately it will not die.

Having said that, I still want a quality steel frame one day, for no reason really than to complete my collection. Can't have a proper stable without a good steel bike. :)
 
Aussie Steve said:
Wheelist: ya got it right, dude...the man secretly lusts after Steel...how could ANYBODY love carbon? OK, my carbon forks on my OCR1 prove that Carbon is very compliant and comfortable.
But it has a limited life, and constant cyclical loading and stresses will cause it to fail. One day it will crack, Bottom Bracket shell, head tube, wherever, but it will go. Carbon is fine if you are in a pro team and have a new bike handed to you each year. Most of us mortals cannot afford the luxury of changing bikes almost as often as we wear out a front tyre...!!!!
Click to expand...
See if your bike shop has a cross section of light weight steel tubing (eg ultrafoco). It is about as thick as aluminium foil. Do you really think that stuff is going to last? (Hint - it doesn't).
 
artmichalek said:
If the material has an endurance limit, it's ignored. The reason being that most frame manufacturers don't warrant against fatigue in the first place. They have absolutely no financial interest in knowing what the endurance limit of their frame might be.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. If they are interested in engineering a bike properly then they have to look at fatigue. Static loading is no good even if you pluck some fancy safety factor out of the air. Maybe you work for or know a frame manufacturer well and if they dont design for fatigue on something that is exposed to high cyclic stresses then they are poor engineers.
 
MichaelB said:
I doubt it. If they are interested in engineering a bike properly then they have to look at fatigue. Static loading is no good even if you pluck some fancy safety factor out of the air. Maybe you work for or know a frame manufacturer well and if they dont design for fatigue on something that is exposed to high cyclic stresses then they are poor engineers.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by a good engineer. Fatigue is not the only constraint placed on a frame design. Cost, weight, ride quality, and manufacturability all weigh in very heavily. Good engineering means understanding how to balance these constraints knowing that you can't ever meet all of them. Just because a bike frame doesn't have an infinite fatigue life doesn't mean that it wasn't designed for fatigue. But a rough estimate is about as much as anyone needs. There are a lot of variables, and they're all stochastic. Infinite fatigue life for all outlying combinations is never going to happen. Some amount of judgement is needed to ballpark an "acceptable" life span for the product. Sure, you could design a steel frame to last forever, but the bike buying public has decided that it's not going to lay down several thousand dollars for a ten pound road frame.

Believe the numbers: http://www.efbe.de/testergebnisse/enindex.php
EFBe has yet to test a frame made out of any material that didn't break break under cyclic loading at some point.
 
The lugs, don't forget the beautiful lugs, the quill stems, the thin tubes, the retro look, the snob appeal in a retro kind of way.....:rolleyes:
 
Welp, I have a Columbus Zona steel frame, and it's really the best handling, best riding frame I've yet owned. I've had very good aluminum and titanium frames such as C'dale, Litespeed, K2, but not carbon yet.

This Zona is very stiff, almost too stiff at the rear, but it doesn't beat me up over longer rides. I have no problems doing metric and full centuries on this frame.

Weight is good - around 19 lbs. for 56cm, with a mostly Chorus group, but not the lightest wheels (1678gm/pr.), brakes (Centaur), saddle (Brooks Swift), or BB (Truvativ GP Team SL) just as examples. It wouldn't be too hard to get this rig to sub-18 lbs., which is very good for a steel bike. Unfortunately, I didn't have a means to weigh just the frame before I assembled it.

I'll probably keep this one for a long time.
 
artmichalek said:
It depends on what you mean by a good engineer. Fatigue is not the only constraint placed on a frame design. Cost, weight, ride quality, and manufacturability all weigh in very heavily. Good engineering means understanding how to balance these constraints knowing that you can't ever meet all of them. Just because a bike frame doesn't have an infinite fatigue life doesn't mean that it wasn't designed for fatigue. But a rough estimate is about as much as anyone needs. There are a lot of variables, and they're all stochastic. Infinite fatigue life for all outlying combinations is never going to happen. Some amount of judgement is needed to ballpark an "acceptable" life span for the product. Sure, you could design a steel frame to last forever, but the bike buying public has decided that it's not going to lay down several thousand dollars for a ten pound road frame.

Believe the numbers: http://www.efbe.de/testergebnisse/enindex.php
EFBe has yet to test a frame made out of any material that didn't break break under cyclic loading at some point.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean they should design bikes that never fatigue. That would mean steel bikes really would be king! I responding to the other poster's post that manufaturers dont care about fatigue. I was suggesting they must at least do some form of fatigue analysis to be credible otherwise they could have either a well over the top or under designed bike. You cant tell just by guessing :rolleyes:
 
MichaelB said:
I was suggesting they must at least do some form of fatigue analysis to be credible otherwise they could have either a well over the top or under designed bike. You cant tell just by guessing :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The best steel bikes in the world are still the ones that are hand built in small shops. I'll bet any amount of money that Richard Sachs doesn't sit down and do fatigue calculations every time he starts out a made to order frame. This is one of those cases where experience and intuition are far superior to any type of analysis.
 
For all you guys out there talking about weight of steel, check out Indy Fabs new bike in Road magazine. Now I know that this thing is built with some very high end parts, but it still weighs 16 lbs. I am riding a steel Lemond right now that is my father's. I thought that the weight would hinder me, but the ride quality and the comfort have helped me ride farther and harder. My next bike may just be a new steel custom frame. I do not get into the lugged ones though. I love the ride. Granted I have not ridden but one carbon bike and it was a TREK. I am looking to get a test ride on a Colnago C-50 which I have read is the pinnacle by which a lot of frames are compared. For the price of a C-50 set up though I could get a nice custom steel from Serotta, Indy Fab, Steelman........


Bruce
 
SCDETAILER said:
My next bike may just be a new steel custom frame.
Click to expand...
You mentioned Serotta. They just brought back their Coeur d'Acier for 2006. This is good! It's Columbus Niobium, but whether it's Spirit or Life or some combination I don't know. Custom geom is no charge, but various paint schemes are an upcharge.

http://www.serotta.com/pages/cda.html

 
I also noticed that Orbea has a steel bike now with carbon seat stays. I do not know if you can get it in custom geometry, but I think that may be an option. It is the same tubing, and it is called the spirit. You can also get it without carbon.


Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cyclintom
Custom steel bikes
Replies
1
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
Froze
Froze
cyclintom
Steel bikes and old age
Replies
13
Views
3K
Bike Cafe
Froze
Froze
kymanstaot
Can Heavy Steel Forks Be Drilled?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
Froze
Froze
eladbell
Which decade produced the best steel frames?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Bike Cafe
oldbobcat
oldbobcat
dbackmtg
Steel really does have a nice ride
Replies
9
Views
1K
Bike Cafe
kdelong
kdelong
Top Bottom Back