Why no steel tri bikes?

Triathlon Forum
25

mike asks:

"If somebody could produce a production steel frame with either 650 or 700 c wheels with good geometry that weighed less than 4 lbs and sold for less than 800 bucks, would you buy one? "

curtlo will build you one of these from ox platinum for less than that ( the S3 mentioned by scott is a little over 9 bills - a screaming deal). it’ll weigh around 3.3 lb. fillet brazed. full custom.

you could probably also get a tri-geo gunnar from 853/ox plat for that price, from the same guys that used to build lindquist’s ( steel ) tri bikes.

26

. . . . . or . . . . . .

teesdale ( tetcycles ) - under 8 hundie for reynolds 725 or columbus EL.

it is still a golden age for fine steel bikes. prices are rising, as people figure this out. some of the more well known builders, such as steelman have raised prices massively recently ( demand ). still, some of the lower key players are still out there, cranking out super-fine bikes for less that are so much better than the pacific rim POS genero-bikes that are pushed in the mass market ( and command silly money) it is actually a comedy. whatever.

27

I wasn’t directly referencing you in your past but rather a generic “you” as in anybody.

28

I remember that KHS used to make a nice frame out of True Temper aero tubing with a curved seat tube. Was supposedly one of the more aero frames on the market back in the day. I wonder if you can get still get that aero tubing?

There is still that nice nostalgia from riding a lugged steel frame. I have a Columbus SLX tubed Tommasini done up as a fixed gear commuter bike. A nice ride, but I can honestly say my carbon Orbea Orca kicks it’s arse in the ride department, it is that much smoother.

29

did some of the early Superform work for Slowman.

In any case, some other low volume/high value additions to your fine list: Ionic/Dean (under 9 Bengies for Columbus pipes) and Carl Strong (around 1200 and a master builder in my estimation).

The bottom line, as you mentioned, are that there are a lot of terrific steel framers out there, and the modern steels are every bit as technologically advanced as most of the aluminum and titanium available from sources like Alcoa, Easton and Ancotech. Weight penalties are largely a thing of the past, with of course the exception of the highest end materials like carbon, ultra-butted ti and scandium.

It all comes down to personal preference, and as others have mentioned after Tom’s observance, our sport is largely dominated by the winds of marketing. Gerard, Ves, Felt and others make exception bikes. Still, some people want other options, and I think a lot of our sport’s newer members would be quite pleased with steel.

For the time being, I’ll still root for the dude on the 8-zillion pound, down-tube shifting 7 speed Centurion every time…

30

That’s my current bike. I got it really cheap on ebay. It has a 75 degree seat angle which when I slide the saddle to about the midpoint on the rails is plenty steep for me. I’ve had good bike splits and really enjoy riding it.

31

I got a NOS Waterford in the exact measurements I would order as a custom rig with a 75 seat angle, low BB and shallow front end for $300 on the ebay with a ouzo fork for another $100. It is painted in the team Mack (Ill. tri/road team) red over blue. It is the prettiest ride I have ever owned (over 30 pro bikes) and rides like a dream. I am a genuine sucker for Round Tube Technology and lugs paint me happy. See Ya out there. G

32

Mike Provost,

I can only speak from my own personal experience.

I rode a steel Bianchi road bike for 4-5 years. I then ended up purchasing a Serotta csi steel road bike. At the time, it was their signature bike by which they judged all other bikes they built. It is a great bike.

After 5 years of riding that bike and after getting involved in time trialing on the csi, I finally decided to consider getting a time trial frame. There are a lot of choices to pick from. Almost all the stock frames are either carbon or aluminum or some blend of aluminum and something else.

I finally decided to get a Serotta CX II cs, their steel time trial/tri frame. It is a very sweet bike and ride and I have never regretted the decision to purchase this frame. It rides like a thoroughbred and you are welcome to come along for the ride. Even if you don’t, the bike is chomping at the bit to go for a fast ride. In this regard, it is just like the csi.

I am totally satisfied with the result! I’m willing to wager you would be too, if you decided to do the same.

33

Bernie Mikklesen in Alameda also does work almost exclusively on steel frames.

35

hey dad…what size is that tri bike and what are you asking for it (either as a frame or as a whole)
It is a 58cm Waterford, frame and fork. Built for 650 wheels. Great bike, just didnt fit me well.

36

Ive been on steel for 4 years now (its all I really know) and have thought about going aluminum. I was told that steel is soft and I’d be able to generate more power with aluminum. Myth?

37

Ive been on steel for 4 years now (its all I really know) and have thought about going aluminum. I was told that steel is soft and I’d be able to generate more power with aluminum. Myth

Yep myth. You could have a soft, flexy steel bike or a harsh inflexible one. Same with aluminum (or ti, carbon, wood, plastic, etc).

Their are good reasons to change including

Fit - do you need adifferent geometry?

Aero - Are you searching for that last couple of minutes in a long race?

Weight - Are you searching for that last few seconds?

Feel - Soft, rigid, no matter what the material some bikes just feel right.

Looks - Hey bikes can be expensive, why not ride something that looks good?

Motivation - Tell me you wouldn’t feel obligated to ride more for at least a few months if you just dropped $10k on a top ride.

Styrrell

38

I have a Tru temper steel w/aero tubing tri bike made by Zinn sitting in my garage. It is a 700cc w/76 degree seat tube, large frame (58cm+). It looks like a P3.

I would be happy to sell it with a Reynolds Aero fork and vintage Specialized tri-spokes. Any offers?

“It is never too late to fix your childhood!” Tom Robbins

39

Do you have any photos?

Thanks,

Scott

40

The top tube is 60cm & the head tube is only 11 cm. The positioning is very low and aero for somebody 6’2" or more. I can email you a photo if interested.

“It is never too late to fix your childhood!” Tom Robbins

41

that’s way too long for me. Good luck with it, though.

42

“the modern steels are every bit as technologically advanced as most of the aluminum and titanium available from sources like Alcoa, Easton and Ancotech. Weight penalties are largely a thing of the past.”

i like steel frames a lot, but i don’t agree with your statement. in order for steel tubes to be respectably light and strong, you’ve got to heat treat the shit out of them, and get them up to 150k or 180k psi of tensile, and then they’re very brittle. plus, as opposed to aluminum, you heat the weld zones and semi anneal the bike where it needs to be the strongest. so, you’ve got this paper thin wall right at the point the bike needs the most strength (just behind the head tube on the down and top tubes) and you’re just asking for trouble. plus, the tubes are brittle, not normal steel tubes but those you speak of. so, as opposed to the nice easy failure, it’s more like an aluminum failure.

of course, if you have a tube that is very thick at the weld zone, either a lot of wall or a lot of diameter, you’re safer. but then you’re adding weight, and on a tri bike with a shorter head tube you’re then perhaps talking a compound miter.

if steel bikes were still lugged, and silver soldered, and you used these really high tensile tubes, you’d have an appreciably light bike that was still strong and rode nicely. but ves is right, not very many lugs available, and none if you’re trying anything other than round tubes.

so, the scandium tubeset rides nicely, like steel, and is a lot lighter. but even this tubeset is on the edge. so, easton made this really nice (necked down) top tube (for example) that had a fat O.D. where it connected to the head tube and then swaged down to, i don’t know, 1 1/4" or 1 1/8" or something. really nice tube. and i heard they just stopped making it.

it’s always tough to get raw materials suppliers to make the tubes bike makers want to use.

the last experimental steel bikes i made before i gave up on steel (for market reasons, as tom suggests) were really thin-wall, small O.D., bikes of steel tubes that had the carbon fiber gusset in the front of the front triangle, just like the old QR kilo private reserve had. really, really nice bike. but, expensive to make, not possible to sell.

steel is hard to work with. hard on the cutting tools. harder to weld. and good steel tubes are expensive. and, if you want to make a safe steel bike, you can’t make the frame under, oh, 4 lbs., maybe 3.5 lbs. at the very very lightest. otoh, aluminum is cheap, cheap to cut, easy to use, and easy to make a sub-3 lb frame. but, it doesn’t ride like steel. but the “ride like steel” thing isn’t possible to quantify on a spec sheet (which is what the market always wants to read as a preface to buying).

43

They can take my Waterford from me when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it’s steel lugs!
litherland

45

“What would the difference in TIME be, between the 208 and 207 pound riders?”

zero. basically zero. altho it’s not quite as simple as that in all cycling circumstances. consider this. let’s say you were asked to deadlift 103 lb. then you were asked to deadlift 103.5 lb… you did now know which was which. would you be able to tell the difference? very likely not.

however, let’s say you were riding two identical bikes, and one of them had a front wheel that was 1 lb heavier. could you tell the difference? in spades. this is the same fractional difference as i explained above. the very fact that you can quite easily feel the difference means something.

now, what does it mean? and how much? it means something when, for example, you’re out of the saddle. this is because you’re now pushing weight around that amounts to more than that slight fractional difference.

so, in one way or another it is not simply the difference between 207 and 208. having established that, you’re right, the difference is certainly not enough to cause you to win or lose races. there are people who don’t make enough of the weight difference between a 2.5 lb and 4.5 lb frame. then there are people who make too much out of the difference between a 390 and a 420 gram fork. an appropriate appreciation of the difference in weights is not usually evident. weight is like religion, you’re either on one end of the spectrum or the other.

unfortunately, steel is always heavier, and so all those who take weight overly seriously are excluded from your target audience. it’s just another reason why steel has a smaller place in the market than it should.

47

Hello,

Well, I consider myself to be both a weight weenie and a steel snob. One lb will not make a hugh time difference, of course in the Olympic games TT that one or two seconds could be worth a few hundred thousand dollars if its the difference between a gold and silver.

Good steel frames are nice, and for certain applications are probably the best choice for a bicycle. That said for most of the readers of this site or most people who race some form of bike steel is going to suffer in the $$ to performance ratio.

Styrrell