# which old school steel is the stiffest?



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

would like to build up an old lugged frame to ride around. the difficult thing is my size. when i was racing, 90's and early 2000's, and in the best shape of my life i was 210lbs. the orig steel trek i used to race on, that i no longer have :mad2:, was way to flexy. i went with a klein to stiffen things up. 

so, are there any old basso's, colnoago's, cinelli's, whatever, that would be pretty stiff? i don't race anymore but live close to some great climbing. i don't hammer the hills but still like 'em. they seem to have gotten steeper as i gotten older though. 

thanks for any suggestions. 
cheers, jason


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

I would look for a ride made of Columbus Max. They are usually a bit more pricey, so, if cost is a factor you might try SPX or SP. 

If you get lucky you might find one like the two below.

BTW what size frame would you be riding?


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Respectfully, all steels from 1010 carbon steel to the latest and greatest 953 and XCr have the same Young's modulus (~200 GPa), so are equally stiff. The only two ways to make steel frames stiffer is to increase the tube (1) diameters, or (2) wall thickness. 

Since "old school" steel frames used the same standard tube diameters (except for the French), the only way to increase stiffness was to increase wall thickness (think Columbus SL and SP). Increasing wall thickness increased weight; an SL frame weighs less than an SP frame, which is stiffer.

In the late eighties, Serotta, Schwinn, and others started building frames with OS (oversized) tubing which made for stiffer frames by slightly increasing tube diameters instead of wall thickness. Many OS tube sets have the seat tube flared to a larger diameter near the BB shell to make the frame even stiffer.

If you're looking for a stiff steel frame, your best bet is to find a frame with quality (seamless double-butted chromoly or better) OS tubing with tubing wall thickness of at least .8/.5/.8 millimeters.

*EDIT -* Note that the MAX frame in Ray's post maximizes stiffness in specific planes by ovalizing the tubing. This is really noticable at the head tube where the top tube and down tube are ovalized in the vertical plane. Also, the seat tube flare at the BB shell is more pronounced than on standard OS tubing.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

My buddy's early 1970's Ron Cooper (which he still has built up with the lightest components of the day, BTW) was/is incredibly stiff. My buddy likens it to riding a pogo stick. A Bernard Hinault I rode in the mid 1980's was almost hilariously uncomfortable (sorry, all you Hinault bike fans). The same went for a Schwinn Paramount I rode from the same era. Angry, punishing bikes. But at least you won't have to worry much about BB wag.

Don't go near a Somec, my current coffee bike (it's from 1985). Not quite overcooked spaghetti, but certainly not al dente.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Yep; there are steel frames that are too stiff for comfort for a lighter rider, but perfect for a heavier one.

It's always a compromise trying to balance lots of things like rider weight, frame size, type of riding, using shaped elliptical tubing for lateral stiffness and vertical compliance, yada yada...

If the OP weighed 210 when he was in his best shape, he probably weighs more than that now. A frame that would be bone-jarring stiff for a 150 pound rider might be perfect for a rider weighing 220 or 230.


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

Boy, tough question. There are so many variables at play. I can only offer my two cents worth.

Let's define "old school" steel frames as pre-1990 (humor me), before very many steel tubesets became elliptical or shaped anythign other than round. Let's also look at Reynolds and Columbus tubesets only, since that's what was most prevalent in that era. Given those restrictions, I'd look for something in the SP/SPX range, depending upon your size. I once had a nice Bianchi 60 cm SLX/SPX frame, and it beat me to death, it was so stiff. I couldn't get much flex from the bottom bracket, and I'm a big guy. Those were standard tubes of the era. For a smaller frame, say 55 cm or less, SLX or 753 will be plenty stiff. If you're interested in non-standard tube sizes, look for an old 1980s Masi Volumetrica. Those are reputed to be highly stiff, especially in the smaller sizes. 

Just remember, the builder has as much to do with things as the tubeset, probably more. An experienced builder can select the combinations of tubesets, lugs, and tube lengths to tweak the ride quality for a specific task or a specific rider. There is no ultimate most stiff frame, just the one that feels stiffest to any individual rider. 

Robert


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

@Scooper: does ovalization of tubes make a bike stiffer than if it were built w/o ovalization?


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

merckxman said:


> @Scooper: does ovalization of tubes make a bike stiffer than if it were built w/o ovalization?


Only in the plane of the major axis. In the plane of the minor axis it's less stiff.


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

I am interpreting what you are saying is that for an individual tube it's zero sum...??? My question was for a whole bike like the Merckx XL where every tube in the main triangle is ovalized (and on mine the seat stays are rectangular near the top). Wasn't the point of ovalizing the tubeset to make the bike stiffer?



Scooper said:


> Only in the plane of the major axis. In the plane of the minor axis it's less stiff.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

It is zero sum. Typically, the designer wants to add stiffness on one axis, and is willing to sacrifice a little stiffness in the 90° axis where stiffness may not be as important or possibly where some compliance is actually desirable.

On a carbon fiber frame, the designer uses additional layers of material to the axis he wants to be stiffer, and often the fibers in the CF matrix are unidirectional to provide maximum strength in that direction.

If the designer simply adds material everywhere, the structure is stiffer but weighs more, and in the plane where you want compliance for comfort, that compliance is lost.

If you simply want more stiffness everywhere, you increase the tubing diameter by using XL or double oversize tubing, or you increase the wall thickness (which also increases weight).


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

raymonda said:


> I would look for a ride made of Columbus Max. They are usually a bit more pricey, so, if cost is a factor you might try SPX or SP.
> 
> If you get lucky you might find one like the two below.
> 
> BTW what size frame would you be riding?


Don't forget to link my diamondback.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

hey guys, thanks for the discussion here. 

i'm 6'2" and about 215+/- a few right now, depending on the day. i ride a 58cm klein. that's seat tube, i don't remember if it's c-t, or c-c. i've started training for some gravel grinders so if anything my weight will go down. when i was at race weight years ago my bmi was much different than it is today, unfortunately. i was swimming and climbing quite a bit at the time so my upper body was pretty big for a cyclist, but i knew i wasn't pro level anyway, it was for fun and excitement. 

back in the day sprinting and on the flats i could move, going uphill i could hold on. i'd never leave anyone but was fit enough to suck on some skinny dudes wheel and stay with him. now a days i won't be sprinting but still like to get out of the saddle and climb. what i don't want to happen, that would on my trek, is when i was hammering or climbing hard the front derailleur would start grinding on the chain, in a hard sprint or hammering up a hill i could dang near drop to the small ring. 

raymonda: which merckx is that?


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

MX leader


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

thx mucho. 

j-


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

My advice is to not get an old road bike for gravel grinds. You want something that will let you be comfortable for hours on loose and rough surfaces. That is, you are gonna want to have tires > 28s on there.

What I would get, if money were no object, would be one of those Spooky Lumberjacks, with room for 38s. That is pretty much my dream bike.

But a Salsa Vaya, or something like it, would be a better choice than some high lust sprinters bike from 1993.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

hi foto. 

for the grinders i've got a bianchi axis with a carbon fork i'm gonna ride. the old road bike is strictly for road riding. you know how it is, ya' can't have to many rides. 

i'll have to look at a spooky lumberjack, never heard of 'em. the salsa's i like too. i bought their woodchipper bars to put on the axis. 

thx, j-


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Yeah, never enough. The Lumberjack is made in the USA custom with the Columbus MAX re-release or whatever you call it. Pretty effin cool.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

i like that spooky lumberjack. my fitness plan over that last yr, or 2, hasn't really gone the way i want so i figured i need a target/goal, hence the grinders. i've got the bianchi that i can use for now, if i do a couple and really like 'em i'll upgrade rides. and i say upgrade cuz i think i'd like the option of a wider tire. 

i also like that it's a US frame. although the reason for this thread, old school frames which generally are going to be out of the country, i like to buy locally when possible. and will pay a little extra for someone who takes the time to listen and help me get what i'm looking for.

i'll keep spooky on my list. 

thx mucho, j-


----------



## Quattro_Assi_07 (Jan 13, 2006)

*How about a Tesch S-22 with True Temper?*

I've been told; but won't experience myself for a few months, that this S-22 frame by Tesch is/was pretty stiff. We shall see.. once I build it up in March.



















Edit: Oops, I see you are looking for lugged frames. Sorry about that.


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

I'll make it easy for you -- Eddy Merckx MX Leader. Good luck finding one for a reasonable price.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

that tesch is a good looking frame. and i don't care if it's lugged or not. preferred, yes. necessary, nope. i realize i'm looking for a rare deal, if it exist, (stiff, to me, old school) beggars can't be choosers. 

and if anyone sees a merckx mx leader, if ya' could lemme know i'd appreciate it. happy to take a look at one. thx tarwheel.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

tarwheel2 said:


> I'll make it easy for you -- Eddy Merckx MX Leader. Good luck finding one for a reasonable price.


That doesn't make it easy.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

madduck said:


> that tesch is a good looking frame. and i don't care if it's lugged or not. preferred, yes. necessary, nope. i realize i'm looking for a rare deal, if it exist, (stiff, to me, old school) beggars can't be choosers.
> 
> and if anyone sees a merckx mx leader, if ya' could lemme know i'd appreciate it. happy to take a look at one. thx tarwheel.


There are a few over at ebay right now.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

tarwheel2 said:


> I'll make it easy for you -- Eddy Merckx MX Leader. Good luck finding one for a reasonable price.


They pop up on ebay from time to time. There appears to be a lot of them in Belgian basements. Even obne in rough condition can be made to look like new with new paint for $300-$400. You might also consider a Corsa 01. It was constructed with Deda zerouno tubes that are ovalized. I have one and weigh around 200 and its plenty stiff. I've heard complaints that the MX Leader is too stiff.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

yeah i saw that. 2 are my size, i think. i've got an old klein catalog around here with my bike in it with the specs, just can't find it. i wanna see how close the merckx and klein sizes are. again i'm not doing this for money so if they're close i might take a chance.


----------



## Bridgestone (Sep 6, 2007)

TSXUL frames are stiff also.


----------



## blamester (Dec 14, 2011)

Hi
I just got a columbus genius frame with differentiated butting and it is much stiffer then my older 531 peugeot, noticeably so.But then again i had the 531 for yrs an it was all i rode.Like in a sprint my granny could beat the peugeot on the columbus.
Cheers


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

The Tesch S22 is pretty stiff, but the Max feels stiffer.
Had both, still have one S22 around.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

ebay 54cm @ 700 with 4 days left.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

54 is just a weeeeee bit small. i'm needing a 58. 

thx though for keeping me in mind. :thumbsup:


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

As cool as those frames are, the forks are ugly, in my opinion.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

foto said:


> As cool as those frames are, the forks are ugly, in my opinion.


:frown2::nono:ut:


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

madduck said:


> would like to build up an old lugged frame to ride around. the difficult thing is my size. when i was racing, 90's and early 2000's, and in the best shape of my life i was 210lbs. the orig steel trek i used to race on, that i no longer have :mad2:, was way to flexy. i went with a klein to stiffen things up.
> 
> so, are there any old basso's, colnoago's, cinelli's, whatever, that would be pretty stiff? i don't race anymore but live close to some great climbing. i don't hammer the hills but still like 'em. they seem to have gotten steeper as i gotten older though.
> 
> ...


There's a 58 cm MX Leader on ebay right now for $650. Shipping is reasonable. It's a bit rough, but looks functional. For another $300 you could get it repainted with redecaled and the frame would look brand new.


----------



## abarth (Aug 12, 2008)

foto said:


> As cool as those frames are, the forks are ugly, in my opinion.


You should know, since your Diamondback Prevail was accidentally made out of Columbus Max tubing. :lol:

I do agree the Max fork is not the best looking fork out there, but still much better looking than those cheap welded uni-crown fork from the late 80's and the 90's.


----------



## abarth (Aug 12, 2008)

madduck said:


> 54 is just a weeeeee bit small. i'm needing a 58.
> 
> thx though for keeping me in mind. :thumbsup:



Smaller frame is good, since you are looking for a stiff frame.


----------



## Anthony3 (Aug 29, 2011)

madduck said:


> would like to build up an old lugged frame to ride around. the difficult thing is my size. when i was racing, 90's and early 2000's, and in the best shape of my life i was 210lbs. the orig steel trek i used to race on, that i no longer have :mad2:, was way to flexy. i went with a klein to stiffen things up.
> 
> so, are there any old basso's, colnoago's, cinelli's, whatever, that would be pretty stiff? i don't race anymore but live close to some great climbing. i don't hammer the hills but still like 'em. they seem to have gotten steeper as i gotten older though.
> 
> ...


Gosh danget hills!


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

keeping an eye on the telekom one, thx.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

abarth said:


> Smaller frame is good, since you are looking for a stiff frame.


this is true. but then i'd be the guy who has a foot of seat tube sticking up. i make fun of those people, don't you???:blush2:

in the old days i was a racing cyclist, now i'm a fashion cyclist.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

madduck said:


> this is true. but then i'd be the guy who has a foot of seat tube sticking up. i make fun of those people, don't you???:blush2:
> 
> in the old days i was a racing cyclist, now i'm a fashion cyclist.


Plus the fact that smaller frames have shorter head tubes, so if you've got a foot of seatpost showing you'll likely need a goofy looking uber tall stem (unless you enjoy lower back pain). :wink:


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

Scooper said:


> Plus the fact that smaller frames have shorter head tubes, so if you've got a foot of seatpost showing you'll likely need a goofy looking uber tall stem (unless you enjoy lower back pain). :wink:


on my browser these post are out of order. 

then rather having an uber tall stem i could always put some tt bar on it and tell people it aero.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

I'm not familar with this one but it sure is a tasty fillet brazed max. It's available over at ebay.


----------



## madduck (Oct 13, 2005)

thx raymonda, i'll look at it tomorrow. 

i missed the telekom mx by $100. the price went from $395 to $520 in the last 20 seconds. i bid $421 not thinking it would jump THAT MUCH. 

oh well, i'll keep looking. 

thx


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

Scooper said:


> Yep; there are steel frames that are too stiff for comfort for a lighter rider, but perfect for a heavier one.


At a 140lbs I can attest to that. I have an old, by today's standards, Reynolds 753 frame. It's more than stiff enough for me. Actually, my 531 frame is more comfortable.


----------



## KensBikes (Feb 6, 2005)

Scooper said:


> Respectfully, all steels from 1010 carbon steel to the latest and greatest 953 and XCr have the same Young's modulus (~200 GPa), so are equally stiff. The only two ways to make steel frames stiffer is to increase the tube (1) diameters, or (2) wall thickness.
> 
> Since "old school" steel frames used the same standard tube diameters (except for the French), the only way to increase stiffness was to increase wall thickness (think Columbus SL and SP). Increasing wall thickness increased weight; an SL frame weighs less than an SP frame, which is stiffer.
> 
> ...


Exactly right. In vintage tubesets which all have the same diameters, stiffness will follow the wall thickness. The stiffest old-school frames with high-strength materials will be made of straight-gauge, such as the 531 straight-gauge main tubes used in the first-generation Raleigh Super Course, and some earlier Raleighs and Carltons. But even more so for vintage frames made of 2040 or 1020, lower strength steels that would require even thicker walls. So the cheapest vintage frames with good durability should be the stiffest, except for thicker-walled oversize modern stuff. Need to compute the second moment of area to figure that out.


----------

