Steel versus carbon

[alienator]

Speaking of Eddie Merckx...
He won his amazing victories on STEEL.
As did Fausto Coppi and many of the other legendary riders of all time.

The benefits of steel are not "imagined"...
Ride a good steel frame made from Columbus tubing.
Then compare it to the BEST carbon frame you can find.
I think you'll see what what I'm talking about.

Well, I see you are continuing your streak of not having made a cogent point.

Jiminy willikers, Cupcake, what do you think frames were made of when Merckx and Coppi rode? Christ, you are a troll.

Exactly what are the benefits of steel? And what is it that Columbus knows that no one else knows? Eh? What knowledge do you have of materials, engineering, and science? Oh, wait, here it comes.....none. All you know is, apparently, what the Columbus marketeers put on a few webpages.

Alas, I have ridden a fine steel steed, a hand-built frame that was made just for me and made in a place renowned for its hand built frames. It was nothing special. Nothing special at all.

Man, I hope you take a better skill-set with you, when you leave your house in the morning, because what you're displaying here looks pretty bare.

 

[Wurm]

Speaking of Eddie Merckx...
He won his amazing victories on STEEL.
As did Fausto Coppi and many of the other legendary riders of all time.

True, but they also didn't have much choice then in frame materials, except maybe aluminum.

The benefits of steel are not "imagined"...
Ride a good steel frame made from Columbus tubing.
Then compare it to the BEST carbon frame you can find.
I think you'll see what what I'm talking about.

Also true, but debatable, (well that's what we're doing on this thread).

Speaking of Columbus steel, my main ride is Zona tubed - stiff but nice - except sometimes it does seem a little harsh in the rear. Part of that could be the quite stiff rear wheel (30 mm. Al rim/G3 Campy Zonda), and the fairly short chainstay length (40.39 cm.). What I perceive as a bit of rear-end harshness is the only real criticism I can throw at this frame - other than to be a perfect geom for me, the TT needs about 6-7 mm. more length (and the corresponding increase in CS).

My point is: I have often wondered if it would benefit from a Carve or Muscle CF wishbone or triangle. Of course, adding a CF rear component to a decent steel frame would probably ******** a few of my purist-thinking buddies. But they don't ride or pay for my bikes - so feck 'em!

So, just to say "Steel is best" doesn't consider many other influences on the overall feel and handling of a frame.

 

[Eldron]

Rick G,

I'll answer your post in two halves... First as a cyclist then as an engineer.

As a cyclist - I can fully understand your sentiment of "carbon feels dead". When I first rode carbon I felt the same. Eventually I realised it was because with steel the frame flexes as you sprint giving it that alive feeling. Your body maintains a straight line with the frame flexing all over the place. Carbon doesn't flex much at all making you flex all over the place while the bike maintains a straight(ish) line. It takes a few hundred/thousand km to get used to...

As an engineer. Carbon is the material of choice because it's strength to weight ratio is far superior to steel. In laymans terms - you can make a carbon frame that is as stiff as a steel frame but weighs less (more volume of carbon of course but less weight). Carbon also has the advantage that you can make just about any shape you like so you can "tweak" the frame by giving it a wide variety of tube shapes (steel is fairly limited to round, oval or slightly shaped tubes - aluminium can be hydro formed of course).

Have a look at any sport where weight vs. strength is the consideration and carbon is the answer.

 

[Rick_G]

Rick G,

I'll answer your post in two halves... First as a cyclist then as an engineer.

As a cyclist - I can fully understand your sentiment of "carbon feels dead". When I first rode carbon I felt the same. Eventually I realised it was because with steel the frame flexes as you sprint giving it that alive feeling. Your body maintains a straight line with the frame flexing all over the place. Carbon doesn't flex much at all making you flex all over the place while the bike maintains a straight(ish) line. It takes a few hundred/thousand km to get used to...

As an engineer. Carbon is the material of choice because it's strength to weight ratio is far superior to steel. In laymans terms - you can make a carbon frame that is as stiff as a steel frame but weighs less (more volume of carbon of course but less weight). Carbon also has the advantage that you can make just about any shape you like so you can "tweak" the frame by giving it a wide variety of tube shapes (steel is fairly limited to round, oval or slightly shaped tubes - aluminium can be hydro formed of course).

Have a look at any sport where weight vs. strength is the consideration and carbon is the answer.

That was some interesting information. Thanks for sharing that. What you said makes good sense. However I'm still puzzled about the "flex" that you referred to.

My Columbus steel frame was actually built with Muscle Carbon seat stays and a carbon fork. According to the Columbus website... their carbon muscle stays are beneficial because "vibrations at high frequency are dampened (for example those induced by an irregular ground)" and it "facilitates the absorption of impacts". The use of carbon adds "comfort".

As I understand it, the reason steel frame builders use carbon for the fork and stays is that it bring some dampening to a fairly rigid frame. In the case of my steel frame, the CF stays and forks appears to add a level of smoothness, as the ride is very comfortable.

This brings me back to the thought that these fine ride qualities of dampening and absorption and comfort which are all wonderful attributes for a smoother ride, might not be the most sprinty. If carbon is intended to soak up road vibrations, how does it know the difference and not soak up pedal stroke energy?

I understand that this whole thing is highly subjective. I'm simply basing my perspective on what I've observed. I'm not saying I'm an AUTHORITY on frames. I've just noticed discernible performance differences between steel and carbon.

Am I biased toward steel? Yes I have to say that I am. I love steel! But here's where bias or opinion gets blown out the window... As I mentioned above, I regularly ride with a few guys who are younger and stronger than I am. They ride carbon, I ride steel. And on our rides I normally have an edge on these guys. I'm sure they're not happy watching an "old man" out-ride them. If their bikes and their stronger younger bodies could kick my butt they'd do it. So I don't think the edge I'm seeing is imagined or based on a personal bias.

 

[jhuskey]

That was some interesting information. Thanks for sharing that. It makes sense.

However I'm still puzzled about the "flex" that you referred to. My Columbus steel frame was actually built with Muscle Carbon seat stays and a carbon fork.

According to the Columbus website... their carbon muscle stays are beneficial because "vibrations at high frequency are dampened (for example those induced by an irregular ground)" and it "facilitates the absorption of impacts". The use of carbon adds "comfort".

This brings me back to the thought that these fine ride qualities of dampening and absorption and comfort which are all wonderful attributes for a smoother ride, might not be the most sprinty. If carbon is intended to soak up road vibrations, how does it know the difference and not soak up pedal stroke energy?

I understand that this whole thing is highly subjective. I'm simply basing my perspective on what I've observed. I'm not saying I'm an AUTHORITY on frames. I've just noticed discernable performance differences between steel and carbon.

Am I biased toward steel? Yes I have to say that I am. I love steel! But here's where bias or opinion gets blown out the window... As I mentioned above, I regularly ride with a group of guys who are younger and stronger than I am. They ride carbon, I ride steel. On our rides I always have an edge on these guys. I'm sure they're not happy watching an "old man" out-ride them. If their bikes and their stronger younger bodies could kick my butt they'd do it. So I don't think the edge I'm seeing is imagined or based on a personal bias.

If you are beating them it's most likely the engine not the bike. Give credit to yourself and not the frame material.
As far vibration they are transfered differently that the torque against a pedal since the frequency of the energy is far different.

 

[Wurm]

This lumping of all steel bikes as "flexing all over the place" is too simplistic and stereotypical. There are about as many different steel tube types and frame designs as there are carbon types and designs. Saying that about steel bikes is no better than saying "all carbon bikes suck" for whatever reason.

I can say that at least in the case of Zona, it does not flex all over the place. In fact, this is probably the most solid, stiffest bike I've owned, except for the very excessive stiffness - read: harshness - of a CAAD 3 frame I had some years ago. As I said above, the rear end of this Zona frame is in my opinion sometimes too stiff. Being between 192-200 lbs and having strong legs, I can't flex it.

I think some people have a prejudice about steel that still lingers from the old days. You say "steel" to some people, and the immediate image in their minds is "heavy" and "bouncy". Many people have still not realized that steel tubing has evolved far from what it was in the '70s. Old myths die hard, as they say.

 

[oldbobcat]

Speaking of Eddie Merckx...
He won his amazing victories on STEEL.
As did Fausto Coppi and many of the other legendary riders of all time.

So did all of their opponents. Copppi's rides used steel derailleurs. Does that mean we should abandon aluminum alloy? Merckx retired before indexed shifting and cassette freewheels came into use. His career spanned the evolution from 5-speed freewheels to 7-speed. Would you trade your 9- or 10-speed cassette wheel for a 6-speed freewheel because that's what he used at the high point of his career?

 

[sogood]

I think the final summary is that one really can't judge the material per se, but have to take into account of how they are used by the engineer/designer on a bike. What we can say right now is that due to volume of scale, we all can get pretty decent bikes frames using CF and Alu alloys. Outside of this and due to smaller commercial interests at this point in time, good frames out of Ti, steel and others materials requires careful search of the market place.

 

[Eldron]

Bottom line: Carbon is a better material for making bicycles than steel.

As I've said before it has a better strength to weight ratio than steel. So....if you make a steel frame and a carbon frame with exactly the same amount of "flex" the carbon frame WILL weigh less. Fact.

If you make a steel frame and a carbon frame of exactly the same weight the carbon frame WILL be stiffer. Fact.

On the vibration issue - vibration and a bending moment (read pedalling) are different. Vibration has a small wavelength which is not transmitted well between the strands of carbon fibre. A bending moment has a (relatively) long wavelength which acts on the tube as a whole. This is why they make bells out of metal not carbon fibre.

I will carry on believing this until the F1 championship is won in a steel car, Boeing makes a steel aeroplane, Audi go back to making steel engines and chassis, WRC stop using carbon and Rossi asks Yamaha for a steel motorbike.

 

[benkoostra]

I just can't believe this guy has ridden a cardboard bike!

 

[Wurm]

Bottom line: Carbon is a better material for making bicycles than steel.

In some cases for certain goals, carbon is better. Otherwise, that's just your opinion.

There are so many factors to be considered with each individual bike and individual rider...that to make blanket statements that one frame material is superior to any other is at best myopic. CF, steel, Ti, Al...ALL have their pros & cons.

 

[Eldron]

In some cases for certain goals, carbon is better. Otherwise, that's just your opinion.

There are so many factors to be considered with each individual bike and individual rider...that to make blanket statements that one frame material is superior to any other is at best myopic. CF, steel, Ti, Al...ALL have their pros & cons.

You are quite right. I use my bike for racing - for me (and just about every other serious racer out there) carbon is the material of choice.

If money is a problem - aluminium would probably be a better choice.

If you ride audax's or are a bike tourer where there is a performance/comfort trade off - steel/alu/titanium would all be better than carbon.

My bias is performance in 100-200km races and carbon is my material of choice. If you are racing competitively and you're using anything but carbon you're hampering your performance.

 

[alienator]

You are quite right. I use my bike for racing - for me (and just about every other serious racer out there) carbon is the material of choice.

If money is a problem - aluminium would probably be a better choice.

If you ride audax's or are a bike tourer where there is a performance/comfort trade off - steel/alu/titanium would all be better than carbon.

My bias is performance in 100-200km races and carbon is my material of choice. If you are racing competitively and you're using anything but carbon you're hampering your performance.

Please tell us how a given material will hamper your racing "performance." And please use facts, not bicycle LBS, BBS, racer, or whatever mythology.

 

[dougadam]

I would have to say both.

 

[Shortrider06]

Hey guys you left out the total package. Unlike in other sports such as auto racing equipment has little to do with total performance. As i see it performance is 90% rider and 10% bike. A bad cyclist will not improve drastically with a very expensive bike. Feel is totally personally, a flex may not be felt by others and certain qualitites are totally subjective. Bikes are like shoes you cant tell someone else a certain shoe feels the best

 

[DM4]

You are quite right. I use my bike for racing - for me (and just about every other serious racer out there) carbon is the material of choice.

If money is a problem - aluminium would probably be a better choice.

If you ride audax's or are a bike tourer where there is a performance/comfort trade off - steel/alu/titanium would all be better than carbon.

My bias is performance in 100-200km races and carbon is my material of choice. If you are racing competitively and you're using anything but carbon you're hampering your performance.

I race and have for many years. I was a cat 2 senior and am now a masters rider. I prefer steel to all other frame materials. In fact i just ordered a new DeRosa Corum w/ Campy '07 group. Steel does not hinder my performance.

 

[Rick_G]

Thanks for all the feedback on this topic. Good stuff.
I respect the views of all who responded in a kind manner.

I still hold to what I've observed...
From what I've personally experienced, there's a tighter feel to my Columbus Spirit frame than any of the CF frames that I've ridden. I can appreciate that a lot of riders like CF. But steel feels more responsive to me.

I can see that we all have "personal" preferences. My preference is steel (or TI). And I can see that many of you favor CF. That's cool.

I hope that more riders will take a more OPEN MINDED approach to the various frame materials that are available. Because there is more sweet riding tubing out there than just carbon.

I doubt that the tubing manufacturers would continue to invest their time and money making new innovations to steel if it were just a washed-up medium from a bygone era, as some here have alluded. No my friends, steel is not something to cast aside as "old school". Go for a strong ride on a fine modern steel frame, and see just how much juice can be squeezed from this alternative to carbon fiber.

 

[alienator]

Thanks for all the feedback on this topic. Good stuff.
I respect the views of all who responded in a kind manner.

I still hold to what I've observed...
From what I've personally experienced, there's a tighter feel to my Columbus Spirit frame than any of the CF frames that I've ridden. I can appreciate that a lot of riders like CF. But steel feels more responsive to me.

I can see that we all have "personal" preferences. My preference is steel (or TI). And I can see that many of you favor CF. That's cool.

I hope that more riders will take a more OPEN MINDED approach to the various frame materials that are available. Because there is more sweet riding tubing out there than just carbon.

I doubt that the tubing manufacturers would continue to invest their time and money making new innovations to steel if it were just a washed-up medium from a bygone era, as some here have alluded. No my friends, steel is not something to cast aside as "old school". Go for a strong ride on a fine modern steel frame, and see just how much juice can be squeezed from this alternative to carbon fiber.

Open minded? I hope you're not referring to you. There have always been open minded people here, long before your retread of a way too common thread.

You're only open minded if someone gives your beloved steel a shot.

There are some that are open minded such that they don't care what someone rides, as long as that person rides what feels best to them.....and that is far more open minded than your cut and paste steel love-a-thon.

Nah, you're more of a Columbus shill. Far from open minded. Far from critically thinking. Far from objective and really fuzzy on what actual facts are.

 

[Wurm]

...In fact i just ordered a new DeRosa Corum...

Evil Luddite! Now look what you've done: propagated the ridiculous myth that you can actually race well on a "heavy, rust-prone, noodle" of a frame!

Congrats on the new rig.

Steel does not hinder my performance.

Apparently, Eldron has not been as fortunate.

 

[Wurm]

I'll tell ya what's the BEST material - it is whatever the particular poster has bought most recently, that's what. Lots of people like to think they've made the best choice, no matter what the hell it is. Look at the reviews of wheels, frames, parts on RBR...nearly everything is rated a "5". Very unrealistic if you ask me.

This "CF vs. steel vs...." horse has been flogged quite much here and on other forums. It's good though to see what people are riding and why - if they could hold back some of the clannishness.

But it IS true that Campy beats ShimaNO, gotdammit.