That shocks me. I believe it, but I don’t understand it. Durability is one of the most important features to me, particularly considering the amount of money a decent bike actually costs. When I pay $2000 for a bike, I really really want it to last.
I realize that lots and lots of people care lots and lots about weight, but again, I don’t understand it. I just don’t think the amount of weight that causes people to worry is actually enough to worry about.
In the real world, I don’t know if there’s any durability difference between steel and aluminum, or if it’s just a function of design. But I cringe every time I clamp my bike into the trainer, whereas it doesn’t bother me a bit to stick my wife’s steel frame into the trainer.
Frame material MAY be a factor in how a bike feels, but I suspect that it’s something that only real tech gurus can tell.
I have ridden all kinds of bikes, steel, carbon, aluminum with Softride beam, and now straight aluminum. It’s the contact points - saddle, tires, handlebars and to a lesser degree shoes/pedals, that are going to have bigger impact on comfort and feel.
In the real world, I don’t know if there’s any durability difference between steel and aluminum, or if it’s just a function of design. But I cringe every time I clamp my bike into the trainer, whereas it doesn’t bother me a bit to stick my wife’s steel frame into the trainer.
TOUR did a fairly comprehansive fatigue test of different frame materials (you can find a copy of the article on www.EFBe.de) and there were large differences in durability even with the same material (no surprise there) but on average the lugged steel frames failed first, then the Ti frames, and the Alu lastest the longest. I think there was only one carbon frame, which also went the distance. you can also see test results on the table on the EFBe website, but unfortunately it only shows some frames that pass, not those that fail (and most fail).
There were no TIG-welded steel frames in the Tour test, only lugged. In the EFBe table you’ll find two TIG-welded frames that passed the test, no idea how many failed.
I love steel, and yes, I am a retrogrouch. I admit that I’m by no means a purist, as I do own a 2pc wetsuit, as well as a Softride - but I am still very much a retrogrouch (just ask my girlfriend ).
I think that you can make an awesome bike out of just about any (commonly used) material if you’re dedicated to designing and building bikes, as opposed to just marketing/selling bikes. My favourite alu bike is still the Vitus 979. I love the Merlin Extralight for a ti bike, and CAT makes one sick carbon ride. There are a lot of steel bikes that I lust after, but perhaps none so much as the Colnago Master Light.
While I’m on the retro-rant, I walked by the squash courts at school yesterday and saw kids playing with god-dammed tennis raquets, serving overhand! WTF is this!!!
You know, I’m actually considering it. I wasn’t sure if they’d let me ride a bike with no rear brake though… (Do you know?) I guess I could just put one on and not use it…
steel bikes are not going anywhere. they are “dead” or whatever only in the mass market sense. smaller quality builders are backordered all over the place, and this shows no sign of letting up and indeed it will not.
i recall the bicycle guide test referenced earlier quite differently, btw. it was not a test of whether the testors could tell the difference in material vs material. after all all the testor would have to do is look at the thing. they DID, however, do a test in which they had h havnoovian, i think it was, build two identical bikes of STEEL, but with different tubings. one was colombus sl and one was i think tange, or possibly ishiwata. seeing as both pacific rim tubings were made to copy the sl, the testors indeed could not tell the difference between the two steels of similar, if not identical gauges.
dre’ notes: “And if you’re blind, all you need is one ear, and one finger nail.”
heh heh. and of course, failing that all you need is a short walk with each machine over the nearest sidewalk crack. . . . .
" pok "
" pingggggg "
" ka-bang "
there we are - done. of course, if you are the sort of s-twitcher who is still gonna claim that a conti sprinter rides sooooooooooooooooooo much smoother than a nasty old vittoria open casing clincher . . . . . .well i got nothin for ya.
We always poke fun (politely) at people who come in and say “This is the last bike I’m going to buy” and we tell them, "Yeah, until the next “last bike I’m gonna buy.”
.
You’re wrong there Tom. If/when I buy a Richard Sachs it will be at a time of my life when I’ve given up tri and it really will be a rest of my life bike. I have two hobbies that I won’t give up easily - scuba diving and cycling. As long as my body isn’t too frail to lift a scuba tank or turn a crank, I’ll be doing them both.
I’ll be cycling long after I’ll have given up running, hopefully cycling well into my 80’s( I’m “only” 53 now). When I’m that old I’ll want a high end custom steel like a Richard Sachs or something similiar.
Steel will come back. I do predict this as I see a revival coming our way. It is the “what’s old is new” thing.
Waterford through Barb Lindquist has shown that a steel bike can be just as light as an aluminium bike. Her bike was something like 15lbs and STEEL? I don’t know what size her frame is, or what wheels she runs, but I distinctly remember when a 15 lbs bike was a pipe dream, not EVER achievable in steel, or so we thought. She rode a 15 lbs STEEL bike, which is impossible according to common wisdom.
We also thought that metal matrix and beryllium was going to be the state of cycling frames after 1999. Metal matrix frames weighed in the neighbourhood of about 2.6 or 2.5 lbs, not much less than a comparable alu frame. I can only think of one metal matrix frame that is available right now. I have yet to see any beryllium frames commercially available for public consumption, and the UCI pretty much banned bikes that weight under 15lbs.
Some new steel tube set will have the desired tube shapes that the public likes, and will have the strength of steel with the weight of alu. It is only a matter of time.
People will see steel for what it is- a great material, once again. And it certainly does NOT have to be a retro-grouch material.
" Didnt True Temper make and aero steel frame set a few years back. I think that KHS and maybe Zinn cycles used it."
Had one. It had a curved seat tube, internal brake cabling, short chainstays, and the like.
I don’t know if True Temper even makes that tubeset any more. Yamaguchi Koichi still makes an aero-tubed steel bike from True Temper Velo aero tubing. I know Columbus made aero (fakey) tubing from steel, but it’s long gone.
I wonder if I couldn’t go to my local aircraft supply store, get some 4130 cro-mo airfoil (true airfoil shapes, mind you), and make something that rivals anything on the market and have it made of steel? Hmmm…
Yes- Cervelo is one of the VERY few that use an actual true REAL airfoil shape for their tubes. I have compared it myself. Can’t say that about the others.
Great bikes, custom made from steel in Walnut Creek, CA.
Tim Sheeper rode one to third place at Cali Man Half.
Comfortable, reliable…
After all, it’s the engine that makes a bike fast. That’s why my Stealth and I finished so far back. But we looked good doing it. If I have to choose between being fast and looking good, I’ll take fast. Since I don’t have that choice (at 53) I’ll go for the sex appeal!!
).