Just ordered a new steel frame after a few years on Alu. Where have all the steel frames gone ? Why ? Tom D. ?
Ross.
Steel just isn’t as sexy as all the cool shapes tubes are being forged into using aluminium and the weaves and shapes of carbon, but it can still be used to make great bikes. A friend of mine is starting a new bike brand, beginning with Reynolds 853 steel front triangles coupled to carbon rear triangles. I personally don’t think he should bother with the carbon rear-rends, but that will probably help sales a bit.
If I ever get a chance to ride one of his bikes, or even own one, I’ll post a review.
p.s. If I could have another road bike it would be a Cervelo SuperProdigy (steel frame) to go with my Soloist road/TT bike and P2 tri bike.
With its high strength, good working characteristics and reasonable cost steel is a good material.
It rides either exactly the same or entirely different than all other materials. Ride quality is largely the function of tires, wheels and fork- not frame material except in the case of unusual or extremem examples.
But steel is tired. The novelty of it has largely worn off on the majority of the buying public, although there are a small (possibly growing) number of customers who seem to assign it some mystic significance, probably greaer than what it actually warrants.
Valid or not, customers want deep section, bladed and oversize tube sets. The aesthetic of this has value to consumers and consumers drive the market. A steel bike is a tough sell these days. There are some very, very nice ones but not many customers are attracted to them. I love the Cervelo Prodigy, an unusual and interesting bike. The older LeMond Zurich was a truly excellent road frame. But they are few and far between, as well they should be.
In general, people lost interest. It is the choice of the retrogrouch now.
Yeah, well I’m a retrogrouch then! Grumble, grumble, grumble…Damn you kids!(Fist waving in air!)
Your points are valid, and I don’t want to start yet another in a long line of arguments that resolves nothing, but I think that all materials are sold based more on their mystical cachet than on actual characteristics. People bought Aluminum because it was light(which was cool), they bought titanium because airplanes were made out of it(which was really cool), and they bought carbon just because it was cool.
I like steel because I like the ride. There may well be lots of bikes that ride better than my steel bike, but either they are out of my price range, or no one has put me on one yet.
I have for years looked for a nice high-end steelbike as i missed the feel of steel from my old Reynolds 853 frame. 2 years ago i ordered a italian steel frame in Columbus EL tubing, but when it arrived the paint started to crack in the first week so i gave it back to the dealer again.
Now i have bought a Cervelo Superprodigy and actually took it for the first ride yesterday. The frame was all what i had hoped for - light, responsive, fast steering and just a pleasure to ride (very much like my old R853 steed) with the unique feeling of comfort that (some) steelbikes provides. This would be my choice for longer bikerides or races where comfort is the primary objective.
It is very retro looking, yet uses modern technology. A lot of people have been asking my why on earth i would want a steel-bike when i can get nice big-tubed aluframes (i do have Soloist and P3 for racing), but i guees that if you started your cycling “career” on a steel frame you eventually will long for what you had in the beginning.
Or mayby i am just getting old !
Nobody will ever convince me that frame material doesn’t make a difference. Just try riding an aluminium and then a carbon TCR - two identical bikes and there is a difference.
For some reason people think those fat aluminium tubes are cool, even if most of them aren’t even aero.
I’ve just restored an old steel bike and upgraded it with modern STI to give to my son. For what I spent it’s a far superior ride to what I could have bought new (entry level OCR, Felt, etc) for the same money, so it was well worth the effort.
“Valid or not, customers want deep section, bladed and oversize tube sets. The aesthetic of this has value to consumers and consumers drive the market.”
Tom, at this juncture I still think this is a valid statement, but perhaps the pendulum maybe swinging the other way. Take the Santo vs. the Saber. Both very similar bikes. Slight differences in geometry, but certainly competitors. The Saber has aero carbon seat stays and the Santo is a round tube Ti bike sans the carbon on the back end. Santos are hard to come by these days. They are just hard to get, but I can’t remember the last Saber we sold. They are just not moving. This is just a data point for now and not an indication of any trend in the market, but who knows, QR may have carved a niche with this round tube bike.
I’ve sold a Santo or had a customer inquire about one.
Viking,
I’m with you and jmorrissey on this one. I ride a Serotta csi. No one has been able to convince me that steel is not real. I love steel bicycles.
Ben Serotta claims that the csi is the bicycle by which he judges all other bicycles in terms of ride quality. Every bicycle he builds, he tries to approach the ride of the csi.
He has been engaged in one experiment to build the ultimate bicycle, cost not being a consideration. The result was the Ottrott. I have ridden one (test ride, although a short one with no climbs or descents). It was a nice ride. Some slight differences were noticeable but were very subtle. But the cost of the frame and fork is 2 1/2 times what the csi costs, about $4,800.00. For such subtle differences, that’s a lot of disposable income.
As Tom D said, some assign steel a mystic significance. I guess I’m one of those few who does.
But I would maintain that it is actually warranted.
Call me happier than a pig in sh@t when I’m on my steel bicycle.
Does anybody remember "Bicycle Guide " magazine? I wrote a couple short pieces for them a long, long time ago.
One of the features they had, and has been re-done by other publications I believe, was this thing where they had four frames made in nearly identical designs, geometries etc- I don;t recall the particulars of how the “test” went- maybe one of you guys do.
Anyway.
The idea was to find out if there is any difference in frame materials. They build four white bikes- no decals. Same parts.
A bunch of people ride them.
They couldn’t tell which was which and most couldn’t tell them apart.
The difference between steel, titanium, carbon fiber, Scnadium, etc, etc. is not nearly as big as the difference between 19mm tires at 130 psi and 23mm tires at 110 psi.
I think frame material makes a difference, but not a huge one. I’ve always owned aluminum, but but have ridden different frame materials, including steel and carbon. Next to aluminum, steel is the material I’ve ridden the most. And I can tell a difference, albeit a subtle one, between steel and aluminum on rough roads. It’s not a huge difference, but certainly I can tell it.
In the end, I think the frame material debate is more marketing hype than anything else. There may be some differences, but not THAT much. What I mean by that is that I would not hesitate at all to buy another aluminum bike. In fact, the road bike I have my eyes on is aluminum. Titanium and carbon are sexy, but they’re not that big of a deal.
This I do know: I bought a Yaqui Manzanita last October, which many of you know is a basic round tubed aluminum tribike (7005 aluminum, I think). I’ve never felt that this ride was particularly harsh, and we have some very rough roads in my community. I had always ridden the bike with my training wheels – Kysrium Equipes. A couple of weeks ago, I put on my race wheels (Mavic Cosmic front, Renn rear, both tubulars w/ 22 mm Contis) and cranked them up to 160 psi. Then the ride became noticeably harsher – very harsh, in fact. In this instance, the tires made the bike harsh, not the frame.
RP
and here I was about to post a pic of my position on my QROO Zero Gravity. yes an 8 year-old steel frame, but it has only been used for short/olympic dist races, so it is in near perfect condtion, (I usually train on other bikes). Other than being “non-aero”, (with the exception of a new Reynolds aero fork), it is still sub 18lbs, very stiff, rides smooth and fits me perfectly. Each year I debate whether or not to replace it with a TiPhoon or Blade etc, but have a hard time figuring out/justifying what type of speed increase vs $, I would get—if any. I generally apply the argument to my wife that the bike/equipment showing up is “safer” than the “old stuff” that may be rusting or fatiguing. It usually works.
Though, I do feel like I’ve stepped out of a time capsule when I show up at a race with a bike that old–the horror.
For me it’s an image thing too. I like to have something different. I use a small builder who can make me something to my design with little or no decals and in a neutral, non-eye catching colour. In lots of products I buy, cycling or otherwise, I like something a little unique that’s not from a huge multinational or a product every other bloke at the race is going to have. The ride quality is also great of course, and I don’t get worried when I travel because I know the frame can be repaired easily. I’m a bit of a retro-geek…yes…but I recognise what works and I know when there is no need to change just for the sake of it. As people are saying here… ride quality is not that different between frame materials…so why is the modern bicycle market dominated by alu ? I have just raced and trained for 3 years on alu and wish I hadn’t. I felt so much part of the crowd. The market is dominated by alu because they’re cheap to make (often in asia I guess) and therefore the mark-up is huge. A small fabriquant with one or two builders is the service a discerning triathlete should be going to and I predict things will go back this way. Once the novelty of high price alu wears off then retro will be cool. It is all other domains. Clothing, cars, interior design. The average triathlete is a middle to high earner and will soon re-demand this type of service. Peace. Ross.
alu is cheaper and easier to make into a frame… so the marketing guys got busy convincing the world that alu is actually a better frame material. Worked pretty well, too. Tom’s right as usual, steel is exactly the same or completely different from all the other frame materials: you can make virtually any material into a frame with specific ride characteristics, just by designing it that way.
That said, the steel bike has history and soul, which conservative grumpy old men like me find appealing. I ride alu for races only, otherwise it’s steel all the way.
I wonder if there is a hidden agenda in all the alu bikes. Seems like a lot of the lightweight frames won’t last very long and need to be replaced every few years. You always hear the manufacturers hype lightness but never durability. In the long run alu bikes will make more money since they will need replacement every few years. Whereas most ti and steel bikes can last decades if taken care of properly.
That may be true in some cases, but all. In fact, we never talk about weight, and always about fatigue testing. But the truth is, few people want to listen. we must get 5-10 e-mails a day with weight questions (to which we reply with an explanation of why people shouldn’t care) and in ten years I may have had 1 about durability. Luckily we don’t report to anybody, no investment company running the show here, so we keep ignoring the requests for weight info.
I have a 1985 Guerciotti steel bike with a Columbus SLX frameset and recently bought a late 1970’s Legnano steel bike with Fiamme red label tubulars and old Campagnolo Super Record components. Both bikes are beautiful and ride well, and I truly love the Guerciotti, but they are nowhere near the comfort and performance levels of my 4-year old Cannondale road bike. The Cannodale’s ride is so much more comfortable it’s silly. The carbon fork, butted tubing, shaped seatstays, and stiff bottom bracket combine to make a damn comfortable and performant bike.
For me, steel bikes ride well in my mind’s eye, based on memories from years ago, but a modern well designed bike will provide an incredible ride. I am sure a modern steel frame would ride well, but all of the new bikes are pretty damn sweet. Steel has the negative technical characteristic of resulting in heavier framesets than carbon, aluminum, or Ti, so it makes no sense to me to buy a modern steel frame— Why carry that extra pound or more around with you?
While I’m at it, has anyone bought a new bike that cost over $1500 in the past 18 months that they would say rides harshly? The only criticism I’ve heard is that some of the superlight bikes are too flexible and whippy.
For my money, I buy pure aluminum bikes— carbon seatstays and chainstays just add weight, cost, and complexity. Take the money you save and buy a Fizik Aliante saddle, a roll of Cinelli cork handlebar tape, some 25 mm wide Continental tires, and a pair of Assos F1 Mille cycling shorts and you’re in business.
-Marc
I bought a steel, fully lugged road bike last spring and I’m thrilled with it. Comfortable, easy handling partner on the road for those long training rides. Fenders so I can ride in the slop with impunity. It’s a Rivendell, baby.
One advantage that steel has is (ease of) repairability. With my old steel frame I easily had the rear dropouts replaced with horizontal ones to make it into a fixed gear. I also had rack/fender eyelets brazed on. Especially the old style lugged frames, you just heated the area, pulled the old tube and or lug out and put a new one in.
Didnt True Temper make and aero steel frame set a few years back. I think that KHS and maybe Zinn cycles used it.
KR
I bought one of these a month or so ago (hence my screen name :-):
http://www.serotta.com/pages/cxiinew.html
I don’t have enough experience to compare it to all the other alternatives out there, but I’m quite happy with it - comfortable, stable, fast (well, as fast as possible given the rider’s limitations). And it does have at least a somewhat aero tubeset.