# Battaglin to focus on steel and phase out carbon fiber frames



## ronf100 (Jan 16, 2012)

Battaglin to focus on steel and phase out carbon fiber frames

Anticipating a market shift toward steel frames, the storied Italian brand is bringing all its frame production back in house, offering custom options, and is renewing its relationship with Columbus. Alessandro Battaglin explains the changes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Yep, I heard the UCI is going to require all future racing to be done on Penny Farthings. They are awaiting implementation until Campy gets a handle on spoon brake technology (should be by 2020).


ronf100 said:


> Battaglin to focus on steel and phase out carbon fiber frames
> 
> Anticipating a market shift toward steel frames, the storied Italian brand is bringing all its frame production back in house, offering custom options, and is renewing its relationship with Columbus. Alessandro Battaglin explains the changes.
> 
> ...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yep, I heard the UCI is going to require all future racing to be done on Penny Farthings. They are awaiting implementation until Campy gets a handle on spoon brake technology (should be by 2020).


I think your hearing aid is defective!


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

"Anticipating a market shift toward steel frames"

I'd guess what that really means is they figure they don't have a chance to complete in the carbon market but can be a player in the smaller steel market especially if that is their only focus.

Then again the European market may be more astute than 'merkins and is weening off snake oil so perhaps they see things I'm not seeing about the market.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yep, I heard the UCI is going to require all future racing to be done on Penny Farthings. They are awaiting implementation until Campy gets a handle on spoon brake technology (should be by 2020).



That would be cool. If they had an event like that I would go watch it, buy a ticket or whatever. I know a guy that has a Penny Farthing bike. His is an antique but he rides it once in a while. He is a collector of bicycles and has an extensive head tube badge collection. Obviously your being sarcastic but it would be fun to watch the race.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> "Anticipating a market shift toward steel frames"
> 
> I'd guess what that really means is they figure they don't have a chance to complete in the carbon market but can be a player in the smaller steel market especially if that is their only focus.
> 
> Then again the European market may be more astute than 'merkins and is weening off snake oil so perhaps they see things I'm not seeing about the market.


It seems "around here" the market shift is towards Nashbar carbon and Motobecane carbon bikes. Right now the big box manufacturers compete against that and are losing in the local market. 

I ride steel myself which is why I clicked on the thread.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

ronf100 said:


> Battaglin to focus on steel and phase out carbon fiber frames
> 
> Anticipating a market shift toward steel frames, the storied Italian brand is bringing all its frame production back in house, offering custom options, and is renewing its relationship with Columbus. Alessandro Battaglin explains the changes.
> 
> ...


That is great. I always knew carbon was a fad

I guess no one was impressed with a generic Chinese-made CF bike with a Battaglin logo on it


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

BikeLayne said:


> It seems "around here" the market shift is towards Nashbar carbon and Motobecane carbon bikes. Right now the big box manufacturers compete against that and are losing in the local market.
> 
> I ride steel myself which is why I clicked on the thread.


I'm in Boston and still see pretty much nothing but carbon super bikes as far as 'roadies' go. I see a ton of bikes direct and nashbar types with hipsters and city casual riders though.

Since taking up gravel and trail riding though I'm seeing a ton of steel and Ti in that scene. And it's not just that a bunch of Retro Crouches do that type of riding. That crowd seems better in tune to what works for the riding they do and don't let marketing impact that. Most of these steel and ti bike have disc brakes and tubeless set ups, so it's pretty clear they're not just using steel and ti for retro cool reasons.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

IMO, carbon frames are becoming commoditized so this makes sense for a smaller legacy brand. Steel is clearly hip right now as are legacy brands. If Battaglin can establish themselves as a go-to brand for made-in-Italy steel, it's great for everyone. 

I'd love to get a reasonably priced option for traditional but updated Italian steel. I hope they offer a brazed / lugged road frame at ~$1,500. I'd also like to see some interesting TIG welded, fatter tire / disc brake options and perhaps a high end stainless option like Cinelli's current XcR (which may be my dream bike).

I'll be disappointed if it's yet another overpriced ($3,500+ for a frame), Columbus SL retro cash-in like what other legacy Italian brands like DeRosa and Colnago have been doing. Nice frames but they should cost half of what is being charged.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

Jay Strongbow said:


> "Anticipating a market shift toward steel frames"
> 
> I'd guess what that really means is they figure they don't have a chance to complete in the carbon market but can be a player in the smaller steel market especially if that is their only focus.


Seems like a good strategy to me...


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

What?


aclinjury said:


> I think your hearing aid is defective!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

BikeLayne said:


> That would be cool. If they had an event like that I would go watch it, buy a ticket or whatever. I know a guy that has a Penny Farthing bike. His is an antique but he rides it once in a while. He is a collector of bicycles and has an extensive head tube badge collection. Obviously your being sarcastic but it would be fun to watch the race.


In the day.






2013


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Cool videos.. It appears to be a long way to the pavement when you fall.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

velodog said:


> In the day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How fast are these guys going?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

DaveG said:


> How fast are these guys going?


Don't know but those wheels are probably 52" or so in diameter, and a guess at their cadences and a rough idea could probably be arrived at. If I figured right the circumference of a 52" wheel would be 163" times the cadence aught to give a rough figure.

Why did the penny-farthing have a large front wheel ? Illustrating insight from data | NewMR

I do know that I met up with a dude riding one and rode a coupla miles with him and we were loafing along at 10\12mph. He said his original had a 50" wheel but he was riding a new manufactured one with a 52" wheel.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Since taking up gravel and trail riding though I'm seeing a ton of steel and Ti in that scene. And it's not just that a bunch of Retro Crouches do that type of riding. That crowd seems better in tune to what works for the riding they do and don't let marketing impact that. Most of these steel and ti bike have disc brakes and tubeless set ups, so it's pretty clear they're not just using steel and ti for retro cool reasons.


Yeah, here in the midwest gravel racing is huge. Carbon bikes are relatively rare in gravel racing. Lots of steel, aluminum and Ti.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

BikeLayne said:


> Cool videos.. It appears to be a long way to the pavement when you fall.


It's gonna hurt! Falls on those often resulted in death.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Lombard said:


> It's gonna hurt! Falls on those often resulted in death.



About a year or so I went on the Roger Sands Memorial ride in Santa Cruz to honor Roger who had passed. When he retired he sold a lot of his collection and owned a Penny Farthing bike that he sold for $2000.00 to one of the guys that worked for him. The owner "Jim" rode it on the ride which was from West Santa Cruz to Davenport and then Swanton Loop. An ordinary ride actually as it was more of a get together. Anyway I got to see him ride the bike to Davenport. He had a relatively high cadence for the slow pace the ride was going at. Also there was another guy who had bought a Hetchins from Roger's wife at the same time and he was riding that bike. A lot of the guys out there still had their bikes from back in the day and in real nice condition. They wanted everyone to bring old gear if they still had it. One guy still had a Davenport Whalers Jersey from the 70's. It was patched in a couple places but he brought it out for one more ride. 

Anyway in Santa Cruz, Ca there are at least 4 custom shops turning out steel and aluminum bikes for people that want one. There is a market for steel but the pricing is competitive. Specialized just jumped back in the steel market recently with the Sequoia model. An all rounder touring style. I no longer go into bike shops so I probably will not see one. We have a shop in town but the owner does not like me and the next shop is 50 miles (Santa Cruz) so I just buy on-line.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Hiro11 said:


> IMO, carbon frames are becoming commoditized so this makes sense for a smaller legacy brand. Steel is clearly hip right now as are legacy brands. If Battaglin can establish themselves as a go-to brand for made-in-Italy steel, it's great for everyone.
> 
> I'd love to get a reasonably priced option for traditional but updated Italian steel. I hope they offer a brazed / lugged road frame at ~$1,500. I'd also like to see some interesting TIG welded, fatter tire / disc brake options and perhaps a high end stainless option like Cinelli's current XcR (which may be my dream bike).
> 
> I'll be disappointed if it's yet another overpriced ($3,500+ for a frame), Columbus SL retro cash-in like what other legacy Italian brands like DeRosa and Colnago have been doing. Nice frames but they should cost half of what is being charged.


My high end Castelli Laser bike, constructed using Columbus SL steel tubes brazed, cost $3000 back in the early to mid 90s. This was not a custom frame, just a mass produced (in Italy) high end frame. 

If you're asking for a $1500 high end steel frame today, lugged and brazed, made in anywhere in the Western World with any sort of quality control to them, it is economically nonviable. Because if it were economically viable, you can bet that market forces would dictate that there would be some people already doing it.

Having said that, going back to steel production is not a guarantee survival strategy for these smaller boutique builders either. Because at any give time, if steel frame were to really take off again, then bet that the Chinese would also be back mimicking high end steel frames at a fraction of a cost, and they'd sold at places like Bikedirects and Nashbar. But I don't see the mass majority embracing steel. Steel right now is mostly a nostalgic moment embraced usually by the minority, but maybe this minority mass is still big enough to support Battaglin's business model


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> My high end Castelli Laser bike, constructed using Columbus SL steel tubes brazed, cost $3000 back in the early to mid 90s. This was not a custom frame, just a mass produced (in Italy) high end frame.
> 
> If you're asking for a $1500 high end steel frame today, lugged and brazed, made in anywhere in the Western World with any sort of quality control to them, it is economically nonviable. Because if it were economically viable, you can bet that market forces would dictate that there would be some people already doing it.
> 
> Having said that, going back to steel production is not a guarantee survival strategy for these smaller boutique builders either. Because at any give time, if steel frame were to really take off again, then bet that the Chinese would also be back mimicking high end steel frames at a fraction of a cost, and they'd sold at places like Bikedirects and Nashbar. But I don't see the mass majority embracing steel. Steel right now is mostly a nostalgic moment embraced usually by the minority, but maybe this minority mass is still big enough to support Battaglin's business model


I dont know of any Chinese manufacturers of high-end steel frames past or present (other than Huffy level bikes). There are a few decent steel frames being made in Taiwan (Soma, Surly, Ritchey). If these buyers are purely buying steel for "nostalgic reasons" as you state they are not going to buy fancy lugged steel bikes with high-end tubing from China even if they are substantially cheaper.


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

velodog said:


> Why did the penny-farthing have a large front wheel ? Illustrating insight from data | NewMR


Interesting link. Around that era they also applied the larger-is-better to locomotive driving wheels, leading to this.

999 Steam Locomotive - Museum of Science and Industry


----------



## colnagoG60 (Jun 27, 2013)

Hiro11 said:


> IMO, carbon frames are becoming commoditized so this makes sense for a smaller legacy brand. Steel is clearly hip right now as are legacy brands. If Battaglin can establish themselves as a go-to brand for made-in-Italy steel, it's great for everyone.
> 
> I'd love to get a reasonably priced option for traditional but updated Italian steel. I hope they offer a brazed / lugged road frame at ~$1,500. I'd also like to see some interesting TIG welded, fatter tire / disc brake options and perhaps a high end stainless option like Cinelli's current XcR (which may be my dream bike).
> 
> I'll be disappointed if it's yet another overpriced ($3,500+ for a frame), Columbus SL retro cash-in like what other legacy Italian brands like DeRosa and Colnago have been doing. Nice frames but they should cost half of what is being charged.


Masters can be had for less than $2k US:

https://www.bellatisport.com/shop/product/1282/Colnago_Master_X-Light.html










Prices have been lower than $1,900 over the past year given currency fluctuations...if you are willing to purchase from European dealers.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

It's hard to say what the cost of a Battaglin would be but steel frames in this area (northern Cal) run $1700.00 for a tig welded Rock Lobster or $2600.00 for a lugged frame. His prices are on the website. A Lighthouse fillet brazed is about $2400.00. I ride a Lighthouse lugged frame that I bought 4 years ago and it was $2400.00 out the door but I used a higher priced lug set then the usual. I wanted my STI shifter bosses to be cast onto the lug. In the Bay area you can buy off the rack Waterfords and Gunners. I almost bought a Gunner 4 years ago and it was $1100.00 for the frame and steel fork. The Waterfords it seemed were around $2400.00 with fork. That is off the rack but I believe you can go to the web page and buy direct.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

My Della Santa was $1700 3\4 years ago, lugged steel made to order. Waterfords start at $1500 tig and $2000 lugged.

Good new steel at affordable prices is out there without going boutique. My Della Santa is a monster good bike that I shoulda bought a long time ago.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> My high end Castelli Laser bike, constructed using Columbus SL steel tubes brazed, cost $3000 back in the early to mid 90s. This was not a custom frame, just a mass produced (in Italy) high end frame.


The Laser is hardly a "mass produced" frame. It was an iconic, extremely rare, exotic frame even back in the day. As a more standard example, I bought a Tommasini made out of SL from Colorado Cyclist in 1989 that cost $725. I remember this price because I saved up lawn mowing money to buy it. That's about $1,500 in today's money and Tomassini was a significantly higher end brand than Battaglin back then. The fact of the matter is that bikes just cost more these days.



> If you're asking for a $1500 high end steel frame today, lugged and brazed, made in anywhere in the Western World with any sort of quality control to them, it is economically nonviable. Because if it were economically viable, you can bet that market forces would dictate that there would be some people already doing it.


Not true at all. There are several makers just here in Chicago that will sell you a made to order steel frame for about $2K. Surely a larger brand like Battaglin could get that down into the $1,500 realm just through economies of scale. This seems like a viable strategy: build steel bikes at scale in Italy.



> Having said that, going back to steel production is not a guarantee survival strategy for these smaller boutique builders either.


It's certainly a better idea than hawking undifferentiated Taiwanese carbon as Battaglin has been doing. 


> But I don't see the mass majority embracing steel. Steel right now is mostly a nostalgic moment embraced usually by the minority, but maybe this minority mass is still big enough to support Battaglin's business model


I think you're underestimating the demand here and I think you've misinterpreted the appeal of steel. I definitely detect a groundswell of support for steel bikes these days in adventure / gravel bikes, urban bikes and single speeds. I'm also starting to see more steel racing frames show up at local crits as well: they survive crashes better. The raft of steel offerings recently shown at Interbike by brands like Willier and Masi clearly show that major brands do as well.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

BikeLayne said:


> It's hard to say what the cost of a Battaglin would be but steel frames in this area (northern Cal) run $1700.00 for a tig welded Rock Lobster or $2600.00 for a lugged frame. His prices are on the website. A Lighthouse fillet brazed is about $2400.00. I ride a Lighthouse lugged frame that I bought 4 years ago and it was $2400.00 out the door but I used a higher priced lug set then the usual. I wanted my STI shifter bosses to be cast onto the lug. In the Bay area you can buy off the rack Waterfords and Gunners. I almost bought a Gunner 4 years ago and it was $1100.00 for the frame and steel fork. The Waterfords it seemed were around $2400.00 with fork. That is off the rack but I believe you can go to the web page and buy direct.


I am definitely Jonesing for one of those Battaglin 65th anniversary frames. Very beautiful. No mention of price. Its been a couple of months since I've bought another bike so I'm about due


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Waterford also has their Gunnar line (Non Custom, with the same tube sets as the Waterford line) for a little under $1000.....90-95% of riders don't need custom.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

More modern...
.
.






even better.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

How to fix a "flat" tire.....


----------



## mik_git (Jul 27, 2012)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> More modern...



I go through there on one of my routes, yet somehow never been to the race, I should make an effort next year.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Steel is perfect bike frame material. It's responsive under power. It "gives' to absorb shock, but quickly resumes its shape. On a climb this is almost a magical return of power on the rebound. The skinny tubing efficiently absorbs shocks. Thicker tubing on aluminum and carbon transfers the shock waves to the rider's butt much more efficiently. I think they called it the "skin effect." So they put pencil thin seat stays and elastomer shock absorbers on to compensate for the inherent stiffness of the fat tubing necessary for strength and response on the head tube, down tube, bottom bracket, and chain stays. 

All of those tubes made of steel absorb shocks quite well added up, due to steel's unique "modulus of elasticity" that gives the right combination of stiffness, response, road feel, and magic carpet comfort. 

And as long as we're going classic, 32 spoked wheels on "flat" rims also absorb shocks really well, on 25 C tires!, while not giving up strength on badly repaired back roads. Steel bends but doesn't break in a crash, so can be bent back into shape without loss of strength. Carbon splits apart and aluminum cracks at the welds in a crash. So steel is a keeper while carbon and aluminum end up in the trash or expensively repaired in a specialty frame shop. Any metal shop with a torch and some sliver or copper braze can restore a steel frame just fine. Steel is user friendly. Lots of people know how to work with it.

I could see CRMO like Columbus SL or Reynolds 531 making a "comeback" if it ever went away.  The fact artisans are still turning out steel bikes pretty much says its not dead and probably has a long life ahead. It solves so many problems simply by nature of its material strength, resiliency, and comfort, all properties of the best bikes that carbon and aluminum have tried for 20 years to approximate, but never without compromise.

The only challenge is appearance. Those skinny round tubes lugged together looks old fashioned. It isn't sculpted and sleek looking like the latest carbons stuff. Steel is form follows function, an aesthetic of the mechanical age. Now everything is sculpted into fanciful shapes that look fast. So buyers think they're cool. Helmets are getting rid of feathers and becoming rounder. That design goes well with carbon frames. The streaking lines on the feather helmets echoed the lines of steel. So fashion will probably prevent steel from becoming the standard like it was up into the '80s, but it won't go away because it makes a perfect handling bike. :thumbsup:


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Fredrico, I love steel bikes (I have 3), but your posts sounds more like you are talking about Unicorns than bikes, with all those magical qualities


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Steel is perfect bike frame material. It's responsive under power. It "gives' to absorb shock, but quickly resumes its shape. On a climb this is almost a magical return of power on the rebound. The skinny tubing efficiently absorbs shocks. Thicker tubing on aluminum and carbon transfers the shock waves to the rider's butt much more efficiently. I think they called it the "skin effect." So they put pencil thin seat stays and elastomer shock absorbers on to compensate for the inherent stiffness of the fat tubing necessary for strength and response on the head tube, down tube, bottom bracket, and chain stays.


Your statement and statements like this always reminds me of words from the immortal Sheldon Brown:

<!--[if lt IE 9]> <script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.min.js"></script> <![endif]-->*"Did you know that:*



Aluminum frames have a harsh ride? 
Titanium frames are soft and whippy? 
Steel frames go soft with age, but they have a nicer ride quality? 
England's Queen Elizabeth is a kingpin of the international drug trade? 
All of the above statements are equally false. 

There is an amazing amount of folkloric "conventional wisdom" about bicycle frames and materials that is widely disseminated, but has no basis in fact.

The reality is that you can make a good bike frame out of any of these metals, with any desired riding qualities, by selecting appropriate tubing diameters, wall thicknesses and frame geometry." 


<!--[if (gte IE 9) | (!IE)]><!--><!--<![endif]-->


Fredrico said:


> All of those tubes made of steel absorb shocks quite well added up, due to steel's unique "modulus of elasticity" that gives the right combination of stiffness, response, road feel, and magic carpet comfort.


If all bike frame tubes of steel, aluminum and carbon were exactly the same shapes, and all other aspects of the bike were equal, then this would be true. However, as Sheldon Brown said, and also as you implied, shaping of tubes plays an equal, if not greater role in frame compliance than frame material.

From first hand experience, I have two carbon road bikes, a steel touring bike and three aluminum bikes (1 hybrid and 2 mountain). In fairness, since all my aluminum bikes have fatter tires and suspensions, we will disqualify them from this argument. My two carbon bikes and steel bike all have 28c tires and are equally comfortable. The one older carbon bike is laterally flexy. The newer carbon bike as well as the steel bike are nicely stiff laterally and feel solid and planted. 

Granted that I don't run 23c tires with bomber pressures on any of these. If I did, then maybe I would notice the difference in comfort and compliance between frame materials? I believe that 28c tires run at 65 front/95 rear or less pretty much negates most comfort differences in between the rider and the tires.




Fredrico said:


> And as long as we're going classic, 32 spoked wheels on "flat" rims also absorb shocks really well, on 25 C tires!


And absorb shock even better on 28c tires!



Fredrico said:


> Steel bends but doesn't break in a crash, so can be bent back into shape without loss of strength.


There are definitely arguments for a good steel frame vs. other materials. I just think the "magic carpet ride" claims are way overblown. Tire choice and pressure will have way more of an impact (pun intended!) on road manners than frame material. Steel is both strong and it's tough. It can handle blunt impact like no other frame material.

However, steel isn't without its disadvantages. Namely, if you store your bike in a damp non-climate controlled environment, it will obviously rust wherever it isn't protected by paint. Per unit volume, it is also the heaviest. In a world or weight weenies, that is the kiss of death. Nevermind that I compared the exact same model of bike recently that I am considering - one carbon version and one steel version. The steel version weighs 2.75lbs. more than the carbon version - hardly what I would call a big difference. But as I said, the weight weenies who are willing to spend big bucks to save 100g think otherwise. It is enough to keep steel as a specialty frame material, not a mainstream one.



Fredrico said:


> The only challenge is appearance. Those skinny round tubes lugged together looks old fashioned. It isn't sculpted and sleek looking like the latest carbons stuff


So if this is such a big issue with marketing, why can't steel frames be made into the snazzy shapes that carbon and aluminum ones are? Certainly it can be done.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I'm in Boston and still see pretty much nothing but carbon super bikes as far as 'roadies' go. I see a ton of bikes direct and nashbar types with hipsters and city casual riders though.
> 
> Since taking up gravel and trail riding though I'm seeing a ton of steel and Ti in that scene. And it's not just that a bunch of Retro Crouches do that type of riding. That crowd seems better in tune to what works for the riding they do and don't let marketing impact that. Most of these steel and ti bike have disc brakes and tubeless set ups, so it's pretty clear they're not just using steel and ti for retro cool reasons.


I am sure the geographical area makes a lot of difference in what people ride. The folks around here are not rich and just ride what they can get. I was down in LA a couple weeks ago for a High School reunion and went to Bolsa Chica State beach for a while (picnic lunch with my wife). Pacific Coast Highway had a vast ocean of cyclists riding up and down the flat stretch of highway between Seal Beach and Huntington beach. About 10 miles I suppose. They were on big money bikes just for that. Being flat and all I think I would prefer a 1 speed cruiser type bike to ride around at the beach. They did have some share the road problems as sometimes the riders were 4 abreast and cars had to get around that. Anyway people buy and ride what they feel works best for them within whatever budget they have to work with.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

I had not heard that about Queen Elizabeth before but it makes total sense. I just knew she was up to something nefarious


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

DaveG said:


> Fredrico, I love steel bikes (I have 3), but your posts sounds more like you are talking about Unicorns than bikes, with all those magical qualities


no kidding. I've been test riding steel (and Ti) bikes recently. Many of them being custom steel designed for other people.
There's really no such thing as "the feel of steel" (to summarize Fred's nonsense). 
A frame designed for a 130 pound woman who wants comfort and one designed for a heavy guy to do crits with will feel nothing at all like each other despite both being steel. I've ridden both recently and they are not even in the same ballpark and have nothing in common in terms of road feel.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

.


> So if this is such a big issue with marketing, why can't steel frames be made into the snazzy shapes that carbon and aluminum ones are? Certainly it can be done.



Steel is what it is. If you make steel into very large diameter tubes it will be stiff no matter how thin you make the walls. Anyway steel bikes do not need to look like a carbon bike with those whiskey barrel sized bottom brackets. Steel bikes need to look like what they are. Columbus spirit OS tubing is a little fatter in the size department. I ride one and it is a nice bike. Bigger diameter and thinner walls is the deal. Nova cycles has a double over sized tubing but I have not seen one and do not know what it would ride like. It has a downtube diameter of 35mm, the OS tubing is 31.8mm and the classic tubing is 28.6mm. My guess would be the double oversize tubing would be for a specialty bicycle of some sort but a bone shaker on rough roads.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> no kidding. I've been test riding steel (and Ti) bikes recently. Many of them being custom steel designed for other people.
> There's really no such thing as "the feel of steel" (to summarize Fred's nonsense).
> A frame designed for a 130 pound woman who wants comfort and one designed for a heavy guy to do crits with will feel nothing at all like each other despite both being steel. I've ridden both recently and they are not even in the same ballpark and have nothing in common in terms of road feel.


Sure! A good frame builder uses different tubing for the desired results. Very true a 125 pound rider obtains the perfect balance of response and comfort on a bike made of SL tubing. But a heavy rider would find SL too flexy. So he gets SLX with the reinforcing ribs, and slightly thicker SP for the chainstays and fork, and achieves the same combination of response and comfort the lighter rider gets on SL. I've heard a very few top of the line custom carbon builders use different carbon layups for larger sized frames, but most don't. Hence the larger frames are flippy, or overbuilt and too stiff. Carbon has come a long way since the '00s, but still compromise stiffness with comfort. Why else would they put elastomer shocks on 'em?

I still hold that CRMO 1"/1.25" butted tubing achieves the "magic" of resiliency, shock absorption and response by nature of its unique "modulus of elasticity" that aluminum doesn't have and that carbon builders have gone to great lengths to duplicate, unsuccessfully IMO. If the stuff is strong enough to be crashworthy, its' too stiff. Steel doesn't have that trade off. I've had horrendous crashes on the SL bike with nary a kink. I pick up the bike, check the wheels, and go. The frame has never gone out of alignment in a crash. It's trustworthy. Can't say that about carbon.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

What a fine fantasy. The trouble you have selling it is the huge number of people who gave up their fat tired bikes in the 50's and 60's to buy "10 speeds" which nearly all became garage wall ornaments. 

I too fell for the bs and bought a Centurian that I rode religiously. I despised every mile of every ride but I was endurance training for another sport and could find no other low impact way to do it. It became clear to me why road riders were pricks. (RBP's)

When 1985 came around I sold that steel POS and bought my first mountain bike. For the first time since I was a kid, I remembered why I used to love cycling. It was not until about 2000 that anyone was able to convince me to try riding another road bike--even for a few minutes. My nephew and riding partner convinced me to try his new carbon fiber trek and I could not believe how the comfort, weight, and efficiency had improved in just 15 years.

In another 25 years all of us old guys will be dead and your snake oil might once again be marketable to youngsters who don't know any better. The problems is, so will you! The good news is that rusty steel bikes and model T's will always make great rural yard ornaments. The bad news is that, while the model t's will conjure up fond memories of their great grand fathers, the bikes will remind them that they were also RBP's. We can only hope that someone will explain why!



Fredrico said:


> Steel is perfect bike frame material. It's responsive under power. It "gives' to absorb shock, but quickly resumes its shape. On a climb this is almost a magical return of power on the rebound. The skinny tubing efficiently absorbs shocks. Thicker tubing on aluminum and carbon transfers the shock waves to the rider's butt much more efficiently. I think they called it the "skin effect." So they put pencil thin seat stays and elastomer shock absorbers on to compensate for the inherent stiffness of the fat tubing necessary for strength and response on the head tube, down tube, bottom bracket, and chain stays.
> 
> All of those tubes made of steel absorb shocks quite well added up, due to steel's unique "modulus of elasticity" that gives the right combination of stiffness, response, road feel, and magic carpet comfort.
> 
> ...


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Waterford also has their Gunnar line (Non Custom, with the same tube sets as the Waterford line) for a little under $1000.....90-95% of riders don't need custom.


There is a bike shop in Alameda, Calif that only sells steel frames and steel bicycles. They sell Waterford, Gunnar and Bob Jackson bikes. The shop is called Stones cycles. 

I think the Gunnar frame sets are a good value.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

rust hasn't been an issue for me with the 35+ steel bikes i've rebuilt.

a few have had plenty of surface rust, so they certainly showed some patina. i cover it with either a similar colored enamel or clear nail polish and forget about it.

my latest rebuild is also my oldest, a '60s paramount: lots of surface rust, but inside, the bb shell looked brand new... man it's smooth. i absolutely love it.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

smart move. carbon bikes are dominated by a few large companies also manufactured by a few large companies. its probably too hard/impossible for a a small boutique company to differentiate and compete in this space. Even though steel frames are a smaller market, its easier for that specialty builder to charge a premium and they avoid competing with the giants, specialized , treks and canyons of the world.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> I too fell for the bs and bought a Centurian that I rode religiously. I despised every mile of every ride but I was endurance training for another sport and could find no other low impact way to do it. It became clear to me why road riders were pricks. (RBP's)
> 
> When 1985 came around I sold that steel POS and bought my first mountain bike. For the first time since I was a kid, I remembered why I used to love cycling. It was not until about 2000 that anyone was able to convince me to try riding another road bike--even for a few minutes. My nephew and riding partner convinced me to try his new carbon fiber trek and I could not believe how the comfort, weight, and efficiency had improved in just 15 years.



These are really apples and oranges comparisons. I don't think my body would last 10 miles on your vintage Centurian! Of course it's going to be rougher around the edges than today's road bikes of any frame material!


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

SwiftSolo said:


> What a fine fantasy. The trouble you have selling it is the huge number of people who gave up their fat tired bikes in the 50's and 60's to buy "10 speeds" which nearly all became garage wall ornaments.
> 
> I too fell for the bs and bought a Centurian that I rode religiously. I despised every mile of every ride but I was endurance training for another sport and could find no other low impact way to do it. It became clear to me why road riders were pricks. (RBP's)
> 
> ...


I had a steel 1979ish "10 speed" and it absolutely sucked and had a similar experience of being totally turned off road cycling just like you.
How do you think a carbon bike made when you bought your Centurian would have been?
You appear to be stuck in time with regard to steel technology but up to date when picking information with a confirmation bias. Nothing wrong with carbon bikes but when comparing them to steel and comparing 2016 to 1970's is rather laughable.


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

> In another 25 years all of us old guys will be dead and your snake oil might once again be marketable to youngsters who don't know any better. The problems is, so will you! The good news is that rusty steel bikes and model T's will always make great rural yard ornaments. The bad news is that, while the model t's will conjure up fond memories of their great grand fathers, the bikes will remind them that they were also RBP's. We can only hope that someone will explain why!


Too funny At least them steel frames will be ridable and not in the trash with the rest of the plastic residue Long Live Ti & Steel


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I have never owned or ridden a Centurian myself but I remember Dan's Bikes in Capitola Calif sold a lot of them in the 70's. Dan was a great guy and rode a bike from Calif to New York pulling a trailer with his dog in it. Next time over in Santa Cruz I will drive bye and see if I can spot the building. Obviously Dan is gone but the building should still be there. It was on 41st Ave almost to the beach. The Flying Dutchman was just around the corner. I bought a used Raleigh 3 speed $125.00 from the Dutchman and road it around for 2 years. Mostly in the evening I would ride down to the beach on it with a cup of coffee and watch the sunset. Anyway I sold it used for $250.00 as many people wanted the old Raleigh in the worst way. It had a cult following sort of. The only bike I have ever owned that I actually made a profit on. My regular bike was an Eisentraut sport touring bike. It was awesome. 

Anyway I'm sorry you guys did not like the Centurian. It seems it was just one of those low priced bikes that was a step up from the Schwinn Varisity.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

BikeLayne said:


> I have never owned or ridden a Centurian myself but I remember Dan's Bikes in Capitola Calif sold a lot of them in the 70's. Dan was a great guy and rode a bike from Calif to New York pulling a trailer with his dog in it. Next time over in Santa Cruz I will drive bye and see if I can spot the building. Obviously Dan is gone but the building should still be there. It was on 41st Ave almost to the beach. The Flying Dutchman was just around the corner. I bought a used Raleigh 3 speed $125.00 from the Dutchman and road it around for 2 years. Mostly in the evening I would ride down to the beach on it with a cup of coffee and watch the sunset. Anyway I sold it used for $250.00 as many people wanted the old Raleigh in the worst way. It had a cult following sort of. The only bike I have ever owned that I actually made a profit on. My regular bike was an Eisentraut sport touring bike. It was awesome.
> 
> Anyway I'm sorry you guys did not like the Centurian. It seems it was just one of those low priced bikes that was a step up from the Schwinn Varisity.


You still have that Eisentraut, or at least pictures to post. They're pretty historically significant, and quite nice bikes too.


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

If you want steel evangelism, see this. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=[site:rodbikes.com+OR+site:rodcycles.com]+steel&gws_rd=ssl

As for me, I have a steel MTB. Frame is made in Taiwan and I assume they could build one for every adult on the planet if the market arose. The bike is a rolling stereotype in being heavy but riding beautifully. Would certainly buy another steel bike, though I'd also like to try Ti for the low-maintenance finish.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

mtrac said:


> If you want steel evangelism, see this.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=[site:rodbikes.com+OR+site:rodcycles.com]+steel&gws_rd=ssl
> 
> As for me, I have a steel MTB. Frame is made in Taiwan and I assume they could build one for every adult on the planet if the market arose. The bike is a rolling stereotype in being heavy but riding beautifully. Would certainly buy another steel bike, though I'd also like to try Ti for the low-maintenance finish.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

velodog said:


> You still have that Eisentraut, or at least pictures to post. They're pretty historically significant, and quite nice bikes too.


I rode the Eisentraut for 7 years or so. I then bought an 82 Allez and sold the Eisentraut. The money went for a TV set as I was just married and we needed stuff for our life. 

Anyway here is a photo of myself on the right with my Eisentraut and my brother-in-law with his Centurion. We were on a ride from Santa Cruz to LA (1975). Fun trip. His Centurion was a more expensive model then the usual. I think he paid about $350.00 for it. 

This Eisentraut was a production model that Albert Eisentraut was doing. The frames were production and he did not necessarily do the brazing on the bikes. It was called the Eisentraut Limited as in limited edition. It was an off the rack bike frame and then I added the components to complete the bike. It was a very good bike capable of touring or fast paced group rides with sew ups. It was a 56cm but these days I am riding a 54cm. My next frame which I am building myself is a 53.5cm. Hope to get the rear triangle completed next week.

I am pretty sure my brother-in-law had the biggest beard in Santa Cruz back then in 75.. He is a clean cut guy these days as I am. No helmets but that was pretty much the way of it in 75.


----------



## hfc (Jan 24, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> What a fine fantasy. The trouble you have selling it is the huge number of people who gave up their fat tired bikes in the 50's and 60's to buy "10 speeds" which nearly all became garage wall ornaments.
> 
> In another 25 years all of us old guys will be dead and your snake oil might once again be marketable to youngsters who don't know any better. The problems is, so will you! The good news is that rusty steel bikes and model T's will always make great rural yard ornaments. The bad news is that, while the model t's will conjure up fond memories of their great grand fathers, the bikes will remind them that they were also RBP's. We can only hope that someone will explain why!


Yeah those steel bikes suck, don't know why anyone would buy one.

Incidentally I didn't buy my first steel bike until after the 2 carbon fiber ones in this pic.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

hfc said:


> Yeah those steel bikes suck, don't know why anyone would buy one.
> 
> Incidentally I didn't buy my first steel bike until after the 2 carbon fiber ones in this pic.


hfc, did you succumb to the "snake oil" too?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

BikeLayne said:


> I rode the Eisentraut for 7 years or so. I then bought an 82 Allez and sold the Eisentraut. The money went for a TV set as I was just married and we needed stuff for our life.
> 
> Anyway here is a photo of myself on the right with my Eisentraut and my brother-in-law with his Centurion. We were on a ride from Santa Cruz to LA (1975). Fun trip. His Centurion was a more expensive model then the usual. I think he paid about $350.00 for it.
> 
> ...


Coupla damn hippies. 

Too bad you couldn't hold on to that bike, but we gotta do what we gotta do. Even if he didn't put the frame together, it was built to his specs, and whoever built it was schooled by Eisentraut.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

velodog said:


> Coupla damn hippies.
> 
> Too bad you couldn't hold on to that bike, but we gotta do what we gotta do. Even if he didn't put the frame together, it was built to his specs, and whoever built it was schooled by Eisentraut.



I do not know the history of it all but he had a lot to do with bike manufacture back then. He trained people and influenced design and technique I guess. But for me it was just a bike that I liked. I replaced it with the Allez but frankly the Specialized was not in the same league. Thinking back I should have skipped the Allez and just kept riding the Eisentraut. But you do what you do. 

We kind of missed the hippie thing. We were both in the Army when Woodstock and stuff happened. By the time we got out it was pretty much over. Doug worked for the phone company and I went back to school and am a retired RN at this point.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

BikeLayne said:


> I'm sorry you guys did not like the Centurian. It seems it was just one of those low priced bikes that was a step up from the Schwinn Varisity.


i doubt it. i don't think centurion marketed anything that low-level (like one piece cranks and 40 lb bikes). they had a small range of steel road bikes, from lower mid-level to high-end (pro and pro tour). they certainly made great bikes that still hold up some forty years later.


----------



## hfc (Jan 24, 2003)

DaveG said:


> hfc, did you succumb to the "snake oil" too?


Drank a big ol' bottle of it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

hfc said:


> Yeah those steel bikes suck, don't know why anyone would buy one.
> 
> Incidentally I didn't buy my first steel bike until after the 2 carbon fiber ones in this pic.


Quite a collection there! :thumbsup: Notice that Colnago carbon bike hanging on the right set the standard and those old obsolete steel bikes were the only ones that measured up, right?


----------



## hfc (Jan 24, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> Quite a collection there! :thumbsup: Notice that Colnago carbon bike hanging on the right set the standard and those old obsolete steel bikes were the only ones that measured up, right?


Lol, it's the lightest one that is easiest to reach over the pile and hang up!

Every one of those bikes (and there's also a Merckx Century not in the pic) I think "this one is my favorite" whenever I ride it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> What a fine fantasy. The trouble you have selling it is the huge number of people who gave up their fat tired bikes in the 50's and 60's to buy "10 speeds" which nearly all became garage wall ornaments.
> 
> I too fell for the bs and bought a Centurian that I rode religiously. I despised every mile of every ride but I was endurance training for another sport and could find no other low impact way to do it. It became clear to me why road riders were pricks. (RBP's)
> 
> ...


Steel is the only material that has response [stiffness], comfort ["elasticity"], and strength [crashworthiness and durability]. Aluminum and carbon may satisfy two of these requirements, but not all at the same time. Therefore they can't match steel. Steel may be heavier than carbon, but this is only significant on climbing. An 80's lugged frame weighed 21-22 pounds, mostly from the heavier components and wheels. I could put modern components on my steel and get the weight down to 18 or 19 pounds easily, plenty light enough for the club rides and local crits, but strong enough for the centuries and event rides. "Weight" discerned as sluggish acceleration and climbing response is well compensated with a well brazed lugged frame that is so nice and responsive, it climbs like a goat.

The thing is, like all other sports, there's a range of choices today not available before the late 80s. Light weight road bikes were a small market compared to today. Cinellis, Colnagos, DeRosas were unknown in the US. Small builders made the good stuff. They also made the top of the line bikes for the mass marketers like Bianchi. The mass produced bikes from Taiwan were knock offs. They were machined brazed out of Tange 2 tubing. The tubing was heavier to withstand the heat from the brazers, so the bikes rode clunkier than Columbus or Reynolds used by the racers in Europe. Coming of a jogging boom, US buyers, terrorized by the lines outside gas stations and embracing green earth, ate 'em up. The Whole Earth Catalog was a best seller.

We sold Centurion bikes out in TX back in the early 90s. They weren't at all in the same league as Colnago, Masi, Eisentraut, or any of the other "boutique" builders of the time. These guys silver soldered lugged Columbus SL or Reynolds 531. The SL alloy had chromium in it and was slightly stiffer. Reynolds had manganese in it, giving a slightly greater modulus of elasticity. Riders raced on SL and toured on 531. They were both durable. 

Of course there are many more choices today, mainly trying to reduce weight. Some of the current super thin tubed tig welded steel bikes are probably as flippy as cheap carbon, I don't know. But I do know the lighter it gets, the less impact resistance it has, not a good thing in a road bike.

So go back and ride a true classic of the era and tell me it's not an entirely different experience than that old Centurion you gave up for that new Trek or Specialized. Steel is real. It has endured in the marketplace for the reasons I tried to enumerate above. This probably explains why one of the old champions of steel, Battaglin, is specializing on this market, returning true to their legacy.

They're putting disc brakes on 'em, too.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

And therein is the reason that steel bikes dominate time trials and endurance competition. Those carbon merchants never really had a chance.

They don't make things like they used to (thank god)


Fredrico said:


> Steel is the only material that has response [stiffness], comfort ["elasticity"], and strength [crashworthiness and durability]. Aluminum and carbon may satisfy two of these requirements, but not all at the same time. Therefore they can't match steel. Steel may be heavier than carbon, but this is only significant on climbing. An 80's lugged frame weighed 21-22 pounds, mostly from the heavier components and wheels. I could put modern components on my steel and get the weight down to 18 or 19 pounds easily, plenty light enough for the club rides and local crits, but strong enough for the centuries and event rides. "Weight" discerned as sluggish acceleration and climbing response is well compensated with a well brazed lugged frame that is so nice and responsive, it climbs like a goat.
> 
> The thing is, like all other sports, there's a range of choices today not available before the late 80s. Light weight road bikes were a small market compared to today. Cinellis, Colnagos, DeRosas were unknown in the US. Small builders made the good stuff. They also made the top of the line bikes for the mass marketers like Bianchi. The mass produced bikes from Taiwan were knock offs. They were machined brazed out of Tange 2 tubing. The tubing was heavier to withstand the heat from the brazers, so the bikes rode clunkier than Columbus or Reynolds used by the racers in Europe. Coming of a jogging boom, US buyers, terrorized by the lines outside gas stations and embracing green earth, ate 'em up. The Whole Earth Catalog was a best seller.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> And therein is the reason that steel bikes dominate time trials and endurance competition. Those carbon merchants never really had a chance.
> 
> They don't make things like they used to (thank god)


Yeah, if speed is all you want, forget nimble handling, carving nice smooth lines around curves, and sitting up eating a Powerbar on mile 45. TT bikes are like drag racers. Most of us prefer a do everything bike. Steel fills that bill extraordinarily well. :ihih:

That Centurion was a lousy, uninspiring steel bike and gave you the wrong impression. Next chance, ride a good steel bike and you'll see what we're talking about. I swear, I'm always amazed how good I feel after an arduous ride on the '84 DeRosa. It's as good as sex! I'm always tired and spent but not beat up. 

Riding a great bike is an athletic activity, dancing on the pedals! The Italians tap into that. Americans are more practical, utilitarian, suckers for the latest bling, but their bikes aren't as fun to ride. A bike is what it is. There are good bikes and bad bikes from every period. The DeRosa is like a late '40s Fender guitar with the tube amplifier and bass reflex speakers. I like the way it plays. it does everything with panache. What else can I say?


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> ...nimble handling, carving nice smooth lines around curves, and sitting up eating a Powerbar on mile 45.


Are you trying to suggest that these things can only be done on Steel?

And seriously? A late 40's Fender? There are some nice things you can say about guitars from the 40's, but 'playability' wasn't their strong suit.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fred and Swifty deserve each other. Proving another person wrong doesn't make you right. You're both pretty far out there on opposite sides of reality.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Next chance, ride a *good* steel bike and you'll see what we're talking about.



There is the key word. I'm sure there are good and bad bikes in all materials - Steel, carbon and aluminum.

I really would like the opportunity to test ride the exact same bike - exact same geometry, wheels, tires (inflated to exact same pressure), etc. in carbon, steel and aluminum to see if I can tell a difference. And even then, tubing shapes could also make a difference. 



Migen21 said:


> And seriously? A late 40's Fender? There are some nice things you can say about guitars from the 40's, but 'playability' wasn't their strong suit.


Good analogy.



Jay Strongbow said:


> Fred and Swifty deserve each other. Proving another person wrong doesn't make you right. You're both pretty far out there on opposite sides of reality.


Pretty much. But it's been entertaining.


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Yeah, if speed is all you want, forget nimble handling, carving nice smooth lines around curves, and sitting up eating a Powerbar on mile 45. TT bikes are like drag racers. Most of us prefer a do everything bike. Steel fills that bill extraordinarily well. :ihih:
> 
> That Centurion was a lousy, uninspiring steel bike and gave you the wrong impression. Next chance, ride a good steel bike and you'll see what we're talking about. I swear, I'm always amazed how good I feel after an arduous ride on the '84 DeRosa. It's as good as sex! I'm always tired and spent but not beat up.
> 
> Riding a great bike is an athletic activity, dancing on the pedals! The Italians tap into that. Americans are more practical, utilitarian, suckers for the latest bling, but their bikes aren't as fun to ride. A bike is what it is. There are good bikes and bad bikes from every period. The DeRosa is like a late '40s Fender guitar with the tube amplifier and bass reflex speakers. I like the way it plays. it does everything with panache. What else can I say?


Fredrick is spot on, Steel is the perfect medium for a great bike due to it's mechanical properties and in the hands of a skilled designer and builder it is truly magical. Ti is also a great choice but for different purposes other than racing. I also like carbon/plastic frames but they tend to all look alike and are not as durable as steel or Ti. Aluminum makes great pots and pans but personally not a medium I like to work with. For the old retro grouches (like me) and riders that tend to collect or keep a bike or two for years, Steel and Ti are perfect!!!


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

n2deep said:


> Fredrick is spot on, Steel is the perfect medium for a great bike due to it's mechanical properties and in the hands of a skilled designer and builder it is truly magical. Ti is also a great choice but for different purposes other than racing. I also like carbon/plastic frames but they tend to all look alike and are not as durable as steel or Ti. Aluminum makes great pots and pans but personally not a medium I like to work with. For the old retro grouches (like me) and riders that tend to collect or keep a bike or two for years, Steel and Ti are perfect!!!


You may know something about bike frames but certainly don't know much about pots and pans


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Fred and Swifty deserve each other. Proving another person wrong doesn't make you right. You're both pretty far out there on opposite sides of reality.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jay Strongbow again.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

n2deep said:


> aluminum makes *inexpensive* pots and pans but personally not a medium i like to work with.


fify.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I guess the bottom line is there are other materials to make bikes from but Battaglin is going to make steel bikes going forward. People still buy steel bikes from small shops and if they have a price that competes then they should be fine. As in everything just buy what you want to have. If nobody buys a new Battaglin then they will go away eventually. All enterprises disappear eventually.

Back someplace somebody made a comment about Model A's. I want one actually. If my wife's head ever bobs up and down I will get a Model A pick up. I have been waiting for 35years for her head to do that up and down thing and have given up but I would like one as a hobby car.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Actually, I always wanted a 32 ford coupe (suicide doors) chopped and channeled when I was younger. My wife still does want a pre-war pickup. We are big into gardening (have a large yard) and thinks it would add to the experience and the visuals. She was very close to her grandmother and I think that has a lot to do with it.

There is a difference between keeping in touch with history and wanting to repeat it. I'm betting that you're not thinking that that model A will be a better driving, faster, or more comfortable riding than your current car.

I do think that metal bikes are more durable in environments where they are likely to be treated harshly.

And finally, Fredrico would be disappointed if I didn't give him a full ration of sh!t.


BikeLayne said:


> I guess the bottom line is there are other materials to make bikes from but Battaglin is going to make steel bikes going forward. People still buy steel bikes from small shops and if they have a price that competes then they should be fine. As in everything just buy what you want to have. If nobody buys a new Battaglin then they will go away eventually. All enterprises disappear eventually.
> 
> Back someplace somebody made a comment about Model A's. I want one actually. If my wife's head ever bobs up and down I will get a Model A pick up. I have been waiting for 35years for her head to do that up and down thing and have given up but I would like one as a hobby car.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually, I always wanted a 32 ford coupe (suicide doors) chopped and channeled when I was younger. My wife still does want a pre-war pickup. We are big into gardening (have a large yard) and thinks it would add to the experience and the visuals. She was very close to her grandmother and I think that has a lot to do with it.
> 
> There is a difference between keeping in touch with history and wanting to repeat it. I'm betting that you're not thinking that that model A will be a better driving, faster, or more comfortable riding than your current car.
> 
> ...


Swift, I know you see it as black and white, old vs new, but you ignore that fact than many folks here have multiple bikes including steel and CF and they like their steel bikes as much or sometimes more than their CF bikes. If your not racing at a high level, the benefits of CF (mainly lightness) become a non-issue to many riders. I'm not trying to change your mind on steel, which already seems closed to that, but you cannot ignore the fact that steel has maintained itself as a small but viable part of the market and a to good numbers of RBRers


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

SwiftSolo said:


> There is a difference between keeping in touch with history and wanting to repeat it. *I'm betting that you're not thinking that that model A will be a better driving, faster, or more comfortable riding than your current car.*


Horrible analogy. 
My current car has a metal frame by the way. You're inability to separate a material from evolution of and engineering/use of that material is comical. Do you think the use of rubber for tires is stupid because model A tires were harsh?


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually, I always wanted a 32 ford coupe (suicide doors) chopped and channeled when I was younger. My wife still does want a pre-war pickup. We are big into gardening (have a large yard) and thinks it would add to the experience and the visuals. She was very close to her grandmother and I think that has a lot to do with it.
> 
> There is a difference between keeping in touch with history and wanting to repeat it. I'm betting that you're not thinking that that model A will be a better driving, faster, or more comfortable riding than your current car.
> 
> ...


I want a model A as a hobby car. Mr regular car is a Subaru Forester still under warranty. 

Bicycles are a hobby for me and form of exercise. Building my own frame is an extension of the hobby. I am not going to be racing in the Amjen Tour.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

back on topic, they're 2,100 €.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

BikeLayne said:


> I want a model A as a hobby car.


I'd rather have one of these:


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

blackfrancois said:


> back on topic, they're 2,100 €.


That seems reasonable. If I didn't already have too many bike, I'd bite


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Lombard said:


> I'd rather have one of these:


 Well you got to have those horses which is a big responsibility. To much hobby for me. I suppose a western style wagon would fit in around here very well. Especially in parades and such and around our yearly rodeo. But I would rather have a fun old car.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

DaveG said:


> That seems reasonable. If I didn't already have too many bike, I'd bite


it's gorgeous, but for that price ($2300), i could find at least two beautiful vintage bikes with full campy nr.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I'm pleased about your cars' metal frame. Your children will see that material and technology go the way of the model A. It will be the change of material that will enable the new technology --much as it has in bicycle frames and components. That technology already exists in formula 1 chassis.

I think the thing that may be missing from your argument is outcome. When steel road bikes begin winning, either in racing or sales (other than entry level), I will acknowledge their superiority. Until then, they will remain what they are--a nostalgic journey back to what once was. There is nothing wrong with taking that path as long as you don't pretend it's leading to something superior or even on par.

I have a bunch of fly rods and reels from the late 50's. I even use the reels and occasionally the rods as a trip back to my childhood. They are not in the same league as my more current rods and reels. Much of that change is related to technology but much of that is not possible with obsolete materials.



Jay Strongbow said:


> Horrible analogy.
> My current car has a metal frame by the way. You're inability to separate a material from evolution of and engineering/use of that material is comical. Do you think the use of rubber for tires is stupid because model A tires were harsh?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> You may know something about bike frames but certainly don't know much about pots and pans


Nah. :nono: 

Steel, stainless steel with copper bottoms, are the superior pots and pans. Heavy iron skillets are also the best by far. They retain the heat longer and distribute it more evenly, so what's in it cooks the same. :thumbsup: Aluminum can't come close. It's not dense enough to be a good conductor of heat. When heat is removed, aluminum cools immediately. It's lousy material for cooking food, as any chef will tell you.


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

I think it's smart business direction and they'll nab folk like me who are cool on CF.

I ride a steel bike; an unremarkable bianchi- old enough to have racy geo, new enough to have a 1 1/8 head tube. I tracked it down 5 years ago cuz i love how they fit/handle. It's my 3rd nice road bike.

I wanted a steel bike because i've always broken the CF/alu MTB frames i've bought, eventually, but the steel ones last until i'm bored with them. I don't get bored of road bikes, so i wanted something that'd last indefinitely. I also ride it to work and around town, as much as i can, and i don't wanna worry about bonking it. My bianchi has been in 2 pretty bad wrecks where i'd retire the frame if i couldn't see the damage.

I'm not the sort of dude to buy fancy stuff, but a really nice steel road bike frame with pedigree... yeah, that could make me happy for a long time. 

...which is probably part of the problem, the guys i know with fancy carbon bikes tend to turn them over a lot more quickly.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I think the Battaglin frame is very beautiful and I am glad they are making them. I hope the company does well.


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Nah. :nono:
> 
> Steel, stainless steel with copper bottoms, are the superior pots and pans. Heavy iron skillets are also the best by far. They retain the heat longer and distribute it more evenly, so what's in it cooks the same. :thumbsup: Aluminum can't come close. It's not dense enough to be a good conductor of heat. When heat is removed, aluminum cools immediately. It's lousy material for cooking food, as any chef will tell you.


How do you feel about carbon fiber cookware?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'm pleased about your cars' metal frame. Your children will see that material and technology go the way of the model A. It will be the change of material that will enable the new technology --much as it has in bicycle frames and components. That technology already exists in formula 1 chassis.
> 
> I think the thing that may be missing from your argument is outcome. When steel road bikes begin winning, either in racing or sales (other than entry level), I will acknowledge their superiority. Until then, they will remain what they are--a nostalgic journey back to what once was. There is nothing wrong with taking that path as long as you don't pretend it's leading to something superior or even on par.
> 
> I have a bunch of fly rods and reels from the late 50's. I even use the reels and occasionally the rods as a trip back to my childhood. They are not in the same league as my more current rods and reels. Much of that change is related to technology but much of that is not possible with obsolete materials.


Since steel bikes can't get their weight down much below 17-18 pounds, they have taken a place in a niche market aside from pure racing. 

Anyway, the current race bikes are products of the sponsors who want to show off their bikes and sell 'em to the fans. Cough up some money and you or I can ride the same bike as Mark Cavendish or Chris Froome! Can't do that with cars, unless you've got $100,000+.

The question then becomes, "Well, so are you going to race?" There seems to be an expanding market for bikes designed for riding in the real world, more like a tool of hunting than a tool of combat. Hence, mountain bikes, and now "gravel bikes." For those, you want durability, ruggedness, ability to take abuse. This demands a little bulk, some more material strength, ability to handle the surprises on the road without going flippy, heavy enough to ride predictably and inspire confidence. Steel fills that role perfectly. Aluminum and carbon are always compromises: too harsh, too flippy, not enough road feel, too much road feel. Steel gets it all right. It's taking years for engineers to tweak carbon to equal the properties of steel. I bet those Battaglins ride as nice as the top of the line carbon frames, and they'll still be around for the grandkids to ride.

Ever drive a sports car designed in the 50s or 60s? Sure, their engines required constant tuning, parts wore out faster, gas mileage sucked, but they were fun to drive! They're still fun to drive. They command high prices at auctions. They've got manual transmissions, hard mechanical linkages and suspensions that give precise road feel. Computers have taken control of the car away from the driver. The end result is a more shallow experience. Like comparing a commercial top 40 hit to an Italian opera! Same with steel bikes. An entirely different experience, no worse, no better, than the current favorites. I've ridden in a '54 Austin Healy, a '63 Jaguar, a '65 Porsche 911, and they rode strong enough to bring goose bumps. Kiss them a fond good bye. Don't just write them off as obsolete inferior technology. They are what they are.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

It'll melt and ruin the stove, won't it? :idea: Carbon is flammable! :nono:

And we keep hearing that it explodes with no warning!


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bubble said:


> I think it's smart business direction and they'll nab folk like me who are cool on CF.
> 
> I ride a steel bike; an unremarkable bianchi- old enough to have racy geo, new enough to have a 1 1/8 head tube. I tracked it down 5 years ago cuz i love how they fit/handle. It's my 3rd nice road bike.
> 
> ...


Yep. It's the consumer mentality, getting the latest thing, forget the trade offs. And sell it before it breaks!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

BikeLayne said:


> Well you got to have those horses which is a big responsibility. To much hobby for me.



Horses are expensive to maintain - more so than a car! But think how great the exercise would be if I were pulling this myself!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Nah. :nono:
> 
> Steel, stainless steel with copper bottoms, are the superior pots and pans. Heavy iron skillets are also the best by far. They retain the heat longer and distribute it more evenly, so what's in it cooks the same. :thumbsup: Aluminum can't come close. It's not dense enough to be a good conductor of heat. When heat is removed, aluminum cools immediately. It's lousy material for cooking food, as any chef will tell you.



Aluminum also leaches into food, which is never a good thing. The aluminum-Alzheimer's connection may be controversial, but I wouldn't bet my health on it.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Nah. :nono:
> 
> Steel, stainless steel with copper bottoms, are the superior pots and pans. Heavy iron skillets are also the best by far. They retain the heat longer and distribute it more evenly, so what's in it cooks the same. :thumbsup: Aluminum can't come close. It's not dense enough to be a good conductor of heat. When heat is removed, aluminum cools immediately. It's lousy material for cooking food, as any chef will tell you.


Maybe actually read what you're responding too? It should have been clear I wasn't saying what you're trying to correct me on.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Horses are expensive to maintain - more so than a car! But think how great the exercise would be if I were pulling this myself!


 It's true the work out would be great and of course you could pick up a few dollars giving rides. All you need is some pancakes and coffee to get it going.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Aluminum also leaches into food, which is never a good thing. The aluminum-Alzheimer's connection may be controversial, but I wouldn't bet my health on it.


Le Creuset makes a real nice pot. Just don't drop one on your foot.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'm pleased about your cars' metal frame. Your children will see that material and technology go the way of the model A. It will be the change of material that will enable the new technology --much as it has in bicycle frames and components. That technology already exists in formula 1 chassis.
> 
> I think the thing that may be missing from your argument is outcome. When steel road bikes begin winning, either in racing or sales (other than entry level), I will acknowledge their superiority. Until then, they will remain what they are--a nostalgic journey back to what once was. There is nothing wrong with taking that path as long as you don't pretend it's leading to something superior or even on par.
> 
> I have a bunch of fly rods and reels from the late 50's. I even use the reels and occasionally the rods as a trip back to my childhood. They are not in the same league as my more current rods and reels. Much of that change is related to technology but much of that is not possible with obsolete materials.



I for one hope steel stays in the small niche market that it enjoys. Local cyclists can have a beautiful and specific needs bike built for them a few miles from their homes. Paint, details, fit and the works for a reasonable price. Support American labor, small business, local taxes etc. Or buy a beautiful Italian bike like the Battaglin. If that does not appeal then no worries as the LBS has a shiny new carbon bike waiting for the cyclist that wants to gear up for the big race.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'm pleased about your cars' metal frame. Your children will see that material and technology go the way of the model A. It will be the change of material that will enable the new technology --much as it has in bicycle frames and components. That technology already exists in formula 1 chassis.
> 
> I think the thing that may be missing from your argument is outcome. *When steel road bikes begin winning, either in racing or sales (other than entry level), I will acknowledge their superiority.* Until then, they will remain what they are--a nostalgic journey back to what once was. There is nothing wrong with taking that path as long as you don't pretend it's leading to something superior or even on par.
> 
> I have a bunch of fly rods and reels from the late 50's. I even use the reels and occasionally the rods as a trip back to my childhood. They are not in the same league as my more current rods and reels. Much of that change is related to technology but much of that is not possible with obsolete materials.


None of the sane people posting here have said or are arguing that steel is superior. Just that steel isn't the same option is was in the 1970's and before and you don't seem to realize that.

I do have a top of the line new carbon bike. And also a modern steel bike. And I'm not the least bit nostalgic about cycling. I like to do it and don't give a flying fck about it's history. 

Not to be rude but so as not to leave any confusion I'll be blunt here: You don't have a clue what you're talking about and just make it known how little you know if by saying steel bikes are just about nostalgia and/or that comparing today's high end steel to decades past has any relevance.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> None of the sane people posting here have said or are arguing that steel is superior. Just that steel isn't the same option is was in the 1970's and before and you don't seem to realize that.


You obviously have a reading comprehension issue.

I'm fully aware that virtually all products have evolved since the 70's. That does not mean that the relative position and usefulness of those products has changed. Carbon fiber technology has evolved even faster.

Buying a steel road bike at this point is much like buying a bamboo fly rod. The decision to buy one has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with nostalgia.

Go back and read Fredrico's post real slow (maybe get an adult to read it for you)


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Maybe actually read what you're responding too? It should have been clear I wasn't saying what you're trying to correct me on.


N2 said "aluminum makes great pots and pans" but "not a medium" he likes to work with, and you came back with he "knows nothing about pots and pans." He knows enough not to use aluminum! I jumped on it without thinking! But I now see you aren't promoting aluminum in pots and pans! Sorry!

This only highlights that aluminum is also a lousy material to build bike frames with, not dense enough to have "elasticity" and absorb shocks and stress over time, an essential property of reliably handling bikes! :nono:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> You obviously have a reading comprehension issue.
> 
> I'm fully aware that virtually all products have evolved since the 70's. That does not mean that the relative position and usefulness of those products has changed. Carbon fiber technology has evolved even faster.
> 
> ...


Bamboo makes great bike frames, what are you talking about? Parlee makes a bamboo frame. It got enthusiastic reviews in the press! Did you know the Chinese have been using bamboo for years in construction scaffolding tied together with bamboo strips. It's as strong as steel and much lighter. Now I agree, bamboo might be a little stiff for a fly rod!

As far as "nostalgia?" These new Battaglins are using Columbus SL. That exact tubing has been around since the '70s! So much for "evolution." It's still a great choice! Don't knock it.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Yep. It's the consumer mentality, getting the latest thing, forget the trade offs. And sell it before it breaks!


get it quick


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

SwiftSolo said:


> Carbon fiber technology has evolved even faster.
> 
> Buying a steel road bike at this point is much like buying a bamboo fly rod. The decision to buy one has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with nostalgia.


That's because carbon was a totally crap frame material until about 10 years ago, where steel has been evolving with bike design since the beginning. 

Nostalgia? Meh. Steel frames are cheaper and more sturdy with a 1.5lb weight penalty. Either material can make a frame with whatever ride character you want, so it seems like a reasonable trade off. Just depends where your priorities are.

No denying the skinny tubes are distinctive though.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

bubble said:


> Steel frames are cheaper and more sturdy...


So much generalization here...

Are all steel frames 'cheaper and more sturdy' that all carbon frames?

Or maybe you meant 'can be cheaper' ? Because I'm pretty sure I could find carbon frames that are plenty sturdy compared to steel, and there are plenty of options that are considerably less expensive than that Battaglin. 

Just within my own personal experience, the only steel bike I've owned recently was a 62cm Surly, and it was floppier than a wet noodle compared to my TeamMachine. 

I suppose we could get into a long discussion about the definition of 'Sturdy' and how it applies to bike frames (as opposed to terms like 'stiffness').


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

Migen21 said:


> So much generalization here...
> 
> Are all steel frames 'cheaper and more sturdy' that all carbon frames?
> 
> ...


We're talking about frame materials when we should be talking about frames. Generalizations are inevitable. Steel has more point-loading strength than carbon and requires fewer man hours to turn into a frame- cheaper and more sturdy. Maybe.


I had to replace the fork on my steel road bike a while ago because of an accident. The new one is a lot stiffer and it made the frame feel like it was stiffer too. Quite a big change. It's interesting.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Yep. It's the consumer mentality, getting the latest thing, forget the trade offs. And sell it before it breaks!


Being an old guy I grew up in a different environment. We saved up for the things we wanted and paid cash for it. Then we took care of it and used the item for many years. I'm still like that. I rode my last bike for 30 years and donated it. The steel bike I have now I will ride until either the bike gives up or I do. Which ever comes first. The good news is the bike and I both have many good years left.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Migen21 said:


> So much generalization here...
> 
> Are all steel frames 'cheaper and more sturdy' that all carbon frames?
> 
> ...



What I've been saying all along. Go back to my post #33.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Lombard said:


> What I've been saying all along. Go back to my post #33.


I would argue that steel is more durable than CF but it really doesn't matter when you can get a 12 pack of Hung Fu's for like $100


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

DaveG said:


> *I would argue that steel is more durable* than CF but it really doesn't matter when you can get a 12 pack of Hung Fu's for like $100


I wouldn't. Not as a rule anyway. On average, yeah. Some steel tubing is super easy to dent though while some carbon layups are really strong and tough.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I wouldn't. Not as a rule anyway. On average, yeah. Some steel tubing is super easy to dent though while some carbon layups are really strong and tough.


Jay, my post was mostly tongue in cheek, I think bikes of all materials can last as long as we need them to. But, if I had the drop a rock on the top tube of one of one of my bikes I'd pick the steel one. That might be the difference between a cosmetic dent and a possible fatal blow. Plus the plastic bike is soulless and thus, has no feelings


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm building a Columbus SL bike frame at the present time. I have dropped the tubes on the concrete and dropped tools on the tubes. They have taken 40 years of beating just with me trying to build a bike. Not a dent anywhere however. I spent 3 hours working on the drop outs this morning, more time then I should have on this forum and rode 23mi on my Columbus Spirit OS tubing bike. It performed very well by the way. 

I had a Specialized Allez that I rode for 30 years. I bought it in 82 and had Tim Neenan's name on the chain stay. He designed the first models. They said it was built with Tange double butted tubing and had a beefy down tube for sprints. It was meant to be a crit bike/road bike. However Ron Halderman won Race Across America on that frame and he never complained about it being to stiff. Mine had problems brand new as it pulled to the right. Specialized refused to warranty it so I had to take it to a custom shop to have my brand new bike repaired. He put the frame on his jig and it was straight and then he put the fork on his jig and it had one fork leg that was longer then the other. So he took a file to the drop out for a while until it sat in the jig properly and off I went. He charged me $5.00. However after that it rode fine. Anyway after 30 years it had no dents, but plenty of scratches and the cable guide on the top tube was heavily rusted as my perspiration dripped right on it. I figured my next bike would have the cable guides on the underside of the tube. I also figured since bike companies have a take a hike warranty going I may as well just buy custom bikes in the future. 

Anyway don't forget that the fastest average speed at Paris Roubaix was in 64. That record still holds. It was 28mph for 165 miles. My guess would be Reynolds 531. Anyway the world is waiting for a speedy rider on carbon to break that average speed record. Maybe the Specialized Roubaix with the new Pogo stick handlebars will be the bike that leaves and old school clunker in the dust after all these years.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bubble said:


> That's because carbon was a totally crap frame material until about 10 years ago, where steel has been evolving with bike design since the beginning.
> 
> Nostalgia? Meh. Steel frames are cheaper and more sturdy with a 1.5lb weight penalty. Either material can make a frame with whatever ride character you want, so it seems like a reasonable trade off. Just depends where your priorities are.
> 
> No denying the skinny tubes are distinctive though.


It's been 22 years since a steel bike has been raced to victory in the TDF. I wonder if all those TDF winners after Indurain's victory in 94 realized they were riding "total crap"?


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> Buying a steel road bike at this point is much like buying a bamboo fly rod.


i don't know anything about bamboo fly rods. do they work great for their purpose? do they make the fishermen feel pride and inspiration when using it? is it comfortable, beautiful, and long lasting?


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Some steel tubing is super easy to dent.


sekai 5000


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

BikeLayne said:


> The steel bike I have now I will ride until either the bike gives up or I do.


that's one of the great things about steel. you can buy used and not worry about it. maybe the stem or seatpost is stuck. i'm batting 1000 freeing all of them. maybe the drops or rear triangle are out of perfect alignment. you can correct it at home with a $7 tool and a 2"x4".

or maybe that's a bad thing. i'll be long gone and my beautiful vintage steel lightweights will be ridden by my nephews and their children and grandchildren...

just bought a '60 paramount i thought i'd flip until i built it up with campy nr and rode it. now i don't know which one i'll sell!


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I wouldn't. Not as a rule anyway. On average, yeah. Some steel tubing is super easy to dent though while some carbon layups are really strong and tough.


I recently dented my Tange Prestige frame. The difference is that it is still rideable as is. If this happened on my carbon frame, I would have to get it repaired or risk catastrophic failure. Thus, steel frames in my mind ARE more durable.


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

SwiftSolo said:


> It's been 22 years since a steel bike has been raced to victory in the TDF. I wonder if all those TDF winners after Indurain's victory in 94 realized they were riding "total crap"?


Of course they did! They're pros, give them some credit!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> i don't know anything about bamboo fly rods. do they work great for their purpose? do they make the fishermen feel pride and inspiration when using it? is it comfortable, beautiful, and long lasting?


I looked up bamboo fly rods. They're currently going for $2000, yes two thousand bucks. They must work great!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Tachycardic said:


> I recently dented my Tange Prestige frame. The difference is that it is still rideable as is. If this happened on my carbon frame, I would have to get it repaired or risk catastrophic failure. Thus, steel frames in my mind ARE more durable.


I crashed the commuter in '87. Bent the fork way back and the head tube out of alignment. There were ripples on the top tube right behind the lug. The frame builder bent everything back into alignment with nary a scratch on the imron paint. I've since put another 50,000 miles on the bike. One has to look really close to see the slight imperfections on the fork below the crown lug. The top tube looks like its never been bent.

The handlebars twisted around and banged the top tube in a crash on the DeRosa the first year I had it, '84. I wrapped handlebar tape around the dimple and put another 60,000 miles on it, including quite a few crashes, about one every two years. No problem.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> I looked up bamboo fly rods. They're currently going for $2000, yes two thousand bucks. They must work great!


Or they are going for $50 and they suck... either way..

Heddon Expert #125 - 9&apos; - 3 F - HCH or D Vintage Bamboo Fly Rod w/ Tube | eBay


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Migen21 said:


> they are going for $50 and they suck...


oh, so, not like a vintage 531 or columbus sl frame. ok. thanks!


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Fredrico said:


> I crashed the commuter in '87. Bent the fork way back and the head tube out of alignment. There were ripples on the top tube right behind the lug. The frame builder bent everything back into alignment with nary a scratch on the imron paint. I've since put another 50,000 miles on the bike. One has to look really close to see the slight imperfections on the fork below the crown lug. The top tube looks like its never been bent. The handlebars twisted around and banged the top tube in a crash on the DeRosa the first year I had it, '84. I wrapped handlebar tape around the dimple and put another 60,000 miles on it, including quite a few crashes, about one every two years. No problem.


my '84 Davidson was crashed by the original owner. he ran it into a hay bale during a race. Bill D realigned the tange fork. i'm now the third owner. it's one of the nicest bikes i've ridden.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Migen21 said:


> Or they are going for $50 and they suck... either way..
> 
> Heddon Expert #125 - 9' - 3 F - HCH or D Vintage Bamboo Fly Rod w/ Tube | eBay


Better know what you're doing buying used on ebay! As the saying goes, "You get what you pay for." Same with bikes. We're talking high end here, not cheap junk.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Good bamboo rods do cost twice as much, cast half as far with less accuracy, break twice as often, and warp if you fail to store them properly.

So yes they work great for helping you remember your great grandfather. I wish I still had one to hang on my den wall.


Fredrico said:


> I looked up bamboo fly rods. They're currently going for $2000, yes two thousand bucks. They must work great!


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> It's been 22 years since a steel bike has been raced to victory in the TDF. I wonder if all those TDF winners after Indurain's victory in 94 realized they were riding "total crap"?



You know Swift, nobody is saying that carbon bikes do not make great racing bikes. They do make good race bikes and they are light and have a lot of good things about them. The thread is not about Professional racing. It's about classic bikes that many people enjoy. Bikes like the Battaglin. Some of us are recreational riders and are not gearing up for the Amgen tour. Myself I just go for bike rides. Any bike would be fine more or less as long as it worked well and fit nicely. 

I just ride steel bikes partly because I like them and partly because 4 years ago when I was looking for a new bike to replace my 30 year old Allez I could not find a bike shop that would help me (about 20 bike stores). I think they just saw an old guy standing there and wanted me to get out and so I did. One guy chewed my butt to the bone because I touched a bike sitting against the wall. It was for sale. Anyway I did get out and all the way to Lighthouse cycles and bought a custom fitted bike. Tim treated me seriously and friendly and spent 4 hours fitting me and discussing with me every aspect of the build. It all worked out well and I like the bike. Now I am building one myself as I am retired, I have the time and I enjoy making things. Mostly wood but I thought I would try metal out and it's going fine. Anyway everybody likes Carbon bikes and some of us like bikes made from other materials also. I am not going to own a carbon bike actually but if I did I think I would buy a Calfee.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> Good bamboo rods do cost twice as much, cast half as far with less accuracy, break twice as often, and warp...


so, the opposite of a nice steel bike, then. good to know.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I wouldn't. Not as a rule anyway. On average, yeah. Some steel tubing is super easy to dent though while some carbon layups are really strong and tough.




Carbon is strong, yes. It is not tough. If you were forced to take a hammer to either your steel bike or your carbon bike, which would you choose?


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Carbon is strong, yes. It is not tough. If you were forced to take a hammer to either your steel bike or your carbon bike, which would you choose?


I'm pretty sure I could destroy any bike with a hammer...

Just a reminder, the most modern passenger planes are being manufactured using composites these days.

I think we can put the 'It's not as sturdy' argument to bed...


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Migen21 said:


> I think we can put the 'It's not as sturdy' argument to bed...


The passenger plane analogy is a bit skewed. Airplane carbon fiber layups are done to a much higher standard than layups for sports equipment. And once in service, airplane carbon assemblies are constantly inspected with tools that can see into or through the components.

I think the "not as sturdy" has to be qualified to make sense. If the front wheel gets blocked and the full rider weight is put on the cantilevered carbon fork as the bike rotates around the front hub, the fork legs are likely to snap. Not so with a steel fork--the legs will only bend back. In that special case, carbon is not nearly as "sturdy" as steel. Conversely, carbon is much "sturdier" than steel if you're talking number of operational stress cycles.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Lombard said:


> Carbon is strong, yes. It is not tough. If you were forced to take a hammer to either your steel bike or your carbon bike, which would you choose?


Depends which steel and which carbon. I'm certain I could dent True Temper s3 or Columbus Spirit a lot easier than I could crack a typical carbon mountain bike with a hammer.

Carbon can definitely be made tough.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

wim said:


> *The passenger plane analogy is a bit skewed. *Airplane carbon fiber layups are done to a much higher standard than layups for sports equipment. And once in service, airplane carbon assemblies are constantly inspected with tools that can see into or through the components.


I agree. But I think if he said hockey sticks instead of airplanes he would have made his point and it wouldn't be flawed. 

Their (hockey sticks) main purpose is to bend and to snap back. But they need to take a beating from impact (slashes, slap shots ect) and are pretty tough at that.
And they are churned out of some low labor cost factory in Taiwan and no special care that airplanes would get.
Pretty much just like bike tubes.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Jay Strongbow said:


> But I think if he said hockey sticks instead of airplanes he would have made his point and it wouldn't be flawed.


True. Way back when in my rowing days, I bought a pair of Concept 2 sculls with carbon fiber shafts. Those shafts were not wrapped in a cosmetic weave, in fact, they weren't even clear-coated. Other than at the grips and the sleeves, handling them would leave itchy pieces of broken fiber strands in your palms.

Long story short: they got banged around a lot, they bent visibly with every stroke (as they are supposed to) and were never cleaned. I gave them away after I quit rowing and as far as I know, they're still going strong.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Depends which steel and which carbon. I'm certain I could dent True Temper s3 or Columbus Spirit a lot easier than I could crack a typical carbon mountain bike with a hammer.


True. But a dent is not a game ender. A crack is.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Lombard said:


> True. But a dent is not a game ender. A crack is.


A steel bike can be repaired easily actually. You can remove your dented tubing and replace it for about a hundred bucks (without paint) at a custom shop. A small dent itself is nothing and you can just ride it that way or use a metal filler like bondo and sand it out and paint and your good.

Steel tubing from Reynolds is good. The higher the 3 digit number the stronger the tubing. 953 is their premium tubing and it air hardens after brazing. It's very strong.

Columbus which I use is not so easy to determine but Columbus SL is still a viable material. Cheap and rides nice over rough roads. It's soft, flexes to much for racing these days and not particularly light. Spirit is the top of the line. Thin walled tubing and light. It would dent easier then Reynolds 953. 

My current bike is Spirit tubing and I have not hit it with a hammer so it's dent free. I am making a Columbus SL tubing bike currently and hopefully I will have it on the road before Christmas. It's my first bike frame to make and I bought it mostly because it's cheap and not to thin walled for a first time frame builder to work with. I am hoping it's nice whacking pot holes on daily rides. 

Steel bikes do break as all frame materials will.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

BikeLayne said:


> A steel bike can be repaired easily actually. You can remove your dented tubing and replace it for about a hundred bucks (without paint) at a custom shop. A small dent itself is nothing and you can just ride it that way or use a metal filler like bondo and sand it out and paint and your good.
> 
> Steel tubing from Reynolds is good. The higher the 3 digit number the stronger the tubing. 953 is their premium tubing and it air hardens after brazing. It's very strong.
> 
> ...


The only steel breaks I've seen were at the lugs or joins, and usually from too much heat in the brazing process rendering the tubing brittle, removing it's "modulus of elasticity." Silver solder takes less heat to melt than copper solder, although copper was considered a bit stronger.

Good luck with your build! :thumbsup:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Yes, opposite because the owners of bamboo fly rods do not deny they feel more connected to the rich history and tradition of fly fishing through the use of these rods. They also tend to harbor no illusions about the relative effectiveness of that tool for casting.

I took the liberty of adding the missing word to your observation below.


blackfrancois said:


> so, the opposite of a nice steel bike *owner*, then. good to know.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> The only steel breaks I've seen were at the lugs or joins, and usually from too much heat in the brazing process rendering the tubing brittle, removing it's "modulus of elasticity." Silver solder takes less heat to melt than copper solder, although copper was considered a bit stronger.
> 
> Good luck with your build! :thumbsup:


I do not see many broken bikes of any kind but my son-in-law has a steel Bianchi and the drive side drop out broke. We took it to Rock Lobster in Santa Cruz and I asked him if he sees broken steel bikes and he said he does almost every day. He does not do repairs any longer at this point as he is so back ordered on builds. In Santa Cruz the place to go for repairs on steel is Francis bicycles which is downtown Santa Cruz. Rock Lobster (Paul) refers you to him. I think Francis bikes like repairs as it's cash right now. He builds mostly cargo bikes and bike trailers. His name is Josh. 

Paul fixed the broken drop out for $40.00. Then the DS chain stay snapped mid point a couple months later and Paul referred us to Francis bikes and he fixed it for $120.00 using a Nova classic style tube. It's been a year and nothing else has broken. Other then my Specialized Allez that needed a fork repair brand new I have no other experience with broken bikes. Specialized refused warranty on my new bike so I had it repaired at a custom shop in Santa Cruz. Otto bikes I think it was called up on Empire Grade. That was 1982 but it was not something that broke but rather just poor craftsmanship. One fork was longer then the other and the guy fixed it for $5.00. That was the end off the peg bikes for me.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

BikeLayne said:


> My current bike is Spirit tubing and I have not hit it with a hammer so it's dent free. I am making a Columbus SL tubing bike currently and hopefully I will have it on the road before Christmas. It's my first bike frame to make and I bought it mostly because it's cheap and not to thin walled for a first time frame builder to work with. I am hoping it's nice whacking pot holes on daily rides.
> 
> Steel bikes do break as all frame materials will.


Post some pics once you get your build done. That is something I would like to try someday


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yes, opposite because the owners of bamboo fly rods do not deny they feel more connected to the rich history and tradition of fly fishing through the use of these rods. They also tend to harbor no illusions about the relative effectiveness of that tool for casting.
> 
> I took the liberty of adding the missing word to your observation below.


Are you that overweight old guy with a Dogma, Zipps, Power Meter and disc brakes who time trials the MUT at 14 MPH content in the knowledge he has the latest in modern technology and using 'the same as the pros' is benefiting him unlike the poor sap on a steel bike (who incidentally is a fast cyclist)?

That guy is to cycling what the once a year guided trip to Montana fly fisherman is to fishing. His guide and $1000 gear per fish ratio makes him a far better fisherman than the poor sap with a yard sale rod who actually catches fish without a guide due to his own talent.

You sound just like 'that guy'.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Are you that overweight old guy with a Dogma, Zipps, Power Meter and disc brakes who time trials the MUT at 14 MPH content in the knowledge he has the latest in modern technology and using 'the same as the pros' is benefiting him unlike the poor sap on a steel bike (who incidentally is a fast cyclist)?
> 
> That guy is to cycling what the once a year guided trip to Montana fly fisherman is to fishing. His guide and $1000 gear per fish ratio makes him a far better fisherman than the poor sap with a yard sale rod who actually catches fish without a guide due to his own talent.
> 
> You sound just like 'that guy'.



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jay Strongbow again.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

BikeLayne said:


> Steel tubing from Reynolds is good. The higher the 3 digit number the stronger the tubing. 953 is their premium tubing and it air hardens after brazing. It's very strong.



I would certainly like to hear further info on Reynolds. The bike I am considering has a Reynolds 631 double butted SST frame:

renegadeexploit 

From what I have seen, a lot of touring bikes have Reynolds 520. So I am assuming the stronger the tubing, the thinner and therefore lighter they can make it? Are the grades of Reynolds tubing nothing more than economics, or is there actually some advantage to the lower numbers other than cost savings? 

And reading through this thread, it sounds like the weak link is at the welds anyway. So it could really be a matter of who welded your frame that day and how tired and overworked the poor guy in the Chinese or Taiwanese factory was.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Honey,
When you have no rational response, it's better to put on your big boy pants and avoid "removing all doubt".

Isn't recess over?


Jay Strongbow said:


> Are you that overweight old guy with a Dogma, Zipps, Power Meter and disc brakes who time trials the MUT at 14 MPH content in the knowledge he has the latest in modern technology and using 'the same as the pros' is benefiting him unlike the poor sap on a steel bike (who incidentally is a fast cyclist)?
> 
> That guy is to cycling what the once a year guided trip to Montana fly fisherman is to fishing. His guide and $1000 gear per fish ratio makes him a far better fisherman than the poor sap with a yard sale rod who actually catches fish without a guide due to his own talent.
> 
> You sound just like 'that guy'.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Are you that overweight old guy with a Dogma, Zipps, Power Meter and disc brakes who time trials the MUT at 14 MPH content in the knowledge he has the latest in modern technology and using 'the same as the pros' is benefiting him unlike the poor sap on a steel bike (who incidentally is a fast cyclist)?
> 
> That guy is to cycling what the once a year guided trip to Montana fly fisherman is to fishing. His guide and $1000 gear per fish ratio makes him a far better fisherman than the poor sap with a yard sale rod who actually catches fish without a guide due to his own talent.
> 
> You sound just like 'that guy'.


To be truthful, I have mixed feelings about "that guy" you're talking about. 

First, if he's got the money and enthusiasm, kudos to him, if he wants to ride the bike of his favorite pro team. Only in cycling can a middle aged guy gaining weight and falling out of shape ride the same stuff as the pros. It's like being able to afford a Ferrari or Lamborghini, capable of riding as hard as the pros. Just knowing you have the cutting edge encourages getting out there and training and getting fitter. How many would pass up the opportunity to drive a formula one race car? That's the bike rider gets. It'll play like a Stradivarius.

Second, most snooty roadies would rather see "this guy" riding a hybrid or mid level aluminum road bike with 105 and no personality. It'll break down way sooner than the fancy bike, and in the meantime provide an uninspiring ride. If "that guy" is willing to spring the money, why not grant him the right to "train up" to the bike, knowing he won't have to "upgrade" anytime soon?

Why do roadies get uptight with "this guy?" Jealousy? :idea:


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Lombard said:


> I would certainly like to hear further info on Reynolds. The bike I am considering has a Reynolds 631 double butted SST frame:
> 
> renegadeexploit
> 
> ...


I am not by any means expert on the different tubes or anything related to cycling. I have just been a rider for a very long time. Some stuff I know to be the truth is in fact not true at all. . However I think 531 is mostly set aside because it not a good choice for tig welding. 520 is 4130 chrome molly tubing and suitable for brazing or welding. Touring bikes many times will be a 520 tubing and outside of the tig welding it's properties are probably very much like 531. It's made in Reynolds Taiwan factory. So with steel as long as it flexes within it's properties will last forever. If you flex it to much then it fatigues and eventually will fail. But basically a 520 steel bike will last forever under normal touring conditions and is a fairly flexible tubing. So you get comfort because it actually flexes.

The 631 tubing is air hardened which means that it will have longer life in the weld zone. Thinner walls and lighter weight. I believe weld breaks are usually at the edge of the weld and it's a weakness from the heat. The air hardened tubings are designed for that.

Thinner walled tubing is lighter and it's possible because the steel in stronger. However the actual ride properties may not be much different and I just do not know. 

At the bookstore yesterday I was browsing a copy of Urban cyclist which has a big price tag of $15.00. I cannot pay that for a magazine so I browsed it and then bought a Road Bike mag which I have not looked at yet.. However I like the magazine because it has a lot of stuff about steel bikes. It has an article about Reynolds tubing and a description of what application the various Reynolds tubings would be the best for.

Reynolds 520 is for touring bikes, urban bikes and all sorts of bikes, 931 for elite racing, 831/631 for road and racing. The higher the number the higher the tensile strength and cost. I do not actually know if a 931 tube would dent easier or harder then 520 . It's stronger but then they make it paper thin and it all comes out about the same except cost and weight. I just do not know and the chances are I will never even ride on any of these tubings. 


I use Columbus SL because that is what Nova cycles is selling. They also sell Nova tubing (whatever that is) but I wanted to pay a few more dollars for the decal which is probably the biggest difference besides the cost. If the bike is aligned properly then it will be a good frame unless my brazing sucks and it comes apart. The geometry is identical to my Lighthouse so it should handle about like that. We shall see. When it's done I am going to go hammer the worst road in town and if it is still stuck together then I figure it may be ok.
. 

If I said something that is not true then sorry about that. Like I said I am not expert.


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

Lombard said:


> I would certainly like to hear further info on Reynolds. The bike I am considering has a Reynolds 631 double butted SST frame:
> 
> renegadeexploit
> 
> ...


631 is air hardening, but both have about the same tensile strength. A 631 frame should be lighter since the welded areas should gain strength from welding. Touring bikes tend to have thicker wall cheaper tubing cuz impact durability and ductility is more important and weight savings is less.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

bubble said:


> 631 is air hardening, but both have about the same tensile strength. A 631 frame should be lighter since the welded areas should gain strength from welding. Touring bikes tend to have thicker wall cheaper tubing cuz impact durability and ductility is more important and weight savings is less.


What exactly are we talkng about? Columbus SL is 1.0 mm at the ends, butted down to 0.6 mm in the middle. That's pretty much paper thin. The tubes will dent from side impacts, but try to bend one. Amazing how strong this paper thin stuff is. Columbus SP is heavied up some fraction of a mm. It was stronger, standard on big frames, and great for carrying heavier loads, like in touring.

I suspect this is what 520 is. So unloaded it will not be quite as cushy as SL, but loaded it will come close to the feel and response of SL.

It's true the welding material strengthens the joints, if heated just enough to fuse the material, but lugs are even better, IMO. Investment cast lugs are really dense and stiff. The tubes always bend just outside the lug. Hence, they can be easily be bent back. Builders say tig welds are just as strong as lugs. I've seen no evidence to prove them wrong. The heat applied in TIG welds is very concentrated and doesn't weaken the tubes any more than brazing with lugs over a much wider area.

A very good article on the tech of steel alloys: 

Steel tubing for Cycle-tourists, Reynolds 531, 520, 853, True Tem

He says Reynolds 531 is exactly the same formula as current day 520 made in Taiwan and 525 made by Reynolds in the UK.[?] He's got some nice discussion on yield strength:

_So what do you get when you pay for expensive steel? Well you get higher UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength) and Yield Strength. These two are obviously important - the most important is not the UTS (which manufacturers tend to concentrate on) but the Yield Strength.

What's the difference? - Well in both cases the material is put under load until it fails. UTS is the point where the material actually snaps or fails completely – Yield Strength is the point at which the material goes beyond its Elastic Limit (from which it can spring back) and deforms permanently (or plastically), on a bike that would be the point where you'd permanently bend or dent a frame-tube._


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

*COLUMBUS 2009 "CLASSIC" SL ROAD TUBE SET*

*Dia(mm)*​*Wall(mm)*​*Length(mm)**DT*​*28.6*​*0.8/0.5/0.8*​*650*​*TT*​*25.4*​*0.8/0.5/0.8*​*600*​*ST*​*28.6*​*0.8/0.6*​*635*​*CS*​*22.2*​*0.7 ROR*​*440*​*SS*​*14ST or 14DT or 16ST
*​*0.6
*​*560
*​*HT*​*31.7*​*1.0*​*200*​

<tbody>

</tbody>
This is the tube set I bought from Nova cycles. So far it seems to be easy to cut, file and to work with in general. I am using silver brazing materials. I hope it rides nicely on our roads that have been pretty much abandoned by the county. I do wonder what happens to the tax dollars they receive for road maintenance. 

At Nova cycles this is the only classic sized Columbus tubing. They do have the OS tubing such as Spirit, Max, Zona, Life and whatever. Not really sure about the differences.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

BikeLayne said:


> *COLUMBUS 2009 "CLASSIC" SL ROAD TUBE SET*
> 
> *Dia(mm)*​*Wall(mm)*​*Length(mm)**DT*​*28.6*​*0.8/0.5/0.8*​*650*​*TT*​*25.4*​*0.8/0.5/0.8*​*600*​*ST*​*28.6*​*0.8/0.6*​*635*​*CS*​*22.2*​*0.7 ROR*​*440*​*SS*​*14ST or 14DT or 16ST
> *​*0.6
> ...


The SL on the '84 DeRosa is 1.0/0.6/1.0. ST is the old standard 27.2, top tube same as yours, 25.4, and down tube same, 28.6. OS tubing is no doubt stiffer, and it can be shaved down to paper thin, but it won't absorb shocks very well.

Amazing how tube diameters determine shock absorption characteristics. The down tube keeps the wheels aligned and the BB from flexing. The 1" top tube and skinnier seat stays absorb "standing waves" more efficiently, attenuating vibrations before they get to the seat post. The rider's weight is on the seat tube, so it has to be slightly larger diameter to handle the torsional stress of rider's weight. So these spaghetti like seat stays on the latest carbon frames are there basically to absorb shocks. The skinnier the better.

So I wouldn't place much value in OS tubing for an all purpose road bike. That SL tube set above is right on for dialing in comfort without giving up response. It's tried and true from many years of experimentation as the perfect formula for road bikes. It'll meet the magical ride qualities only steel can produce.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> The SL on the '84 DeRosa is 1.0/0.6/1.0. ST is the old standard 27.2, top tube same as yours, 25.4, and down tube same, 28.6. OS tubing is no doubt stiffer, and it can be shaved down to paper thin, but it won't absorb shocks very well.
> 
> Amazing how tube diameters determine shock absorption characteristics. The down tube keeps the wheels aligned and the BB from flexing. The 1" top tube and skinnier seat stays absorb "standing waves" more efficiently, attenuating vibrations before they get to the seat post. The rider's weight is on the seat tube, so it has to be slightly larger diameter to handle the torsional stress of rider's weight. So these spaghetti like seat stays on the latest carbon frames are there basically to absorb shocks. The skinnier the better.
> 
> So I wouldn't place much value in OS tubing for an all purpose road bike. That SL tube set above is right on for dialing in comfort without giving up response. It's tried and true from many years of experimentation as the perfect formula for road bikes. It'll meet the magical ride qualities only steel can produce.


My regular bike is Spirit OS tubing and it's the best riding bike I have owned so far. There is nothing about the bike that I can complain about. The guy that built it has about 40 years building bikes. Check out his web page. Lighthousecycles.com

But I am hoping the SL bike is a good bike also. It's my first experience building a frame and it may just be a hunk of junk when I get it on the road. I hope not. Like I said before I bought the tubing set based on price and the decal that I will stick on there.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

BikeLayne said:


> My regular bike is Spirit OS tubing and it's the best riding bike I have owned so far. There is nothing about the bike that I can complain about. The guy that built it has about 40 years building bikes. Check out his web page. Lighthousecycles.com
> 
> But I am hoping the SL bike is a good bike also. It's my first experience building a frame and it may just be a hunk of junk when I get it on the road. I hope not. Like I said before I bought the tubing set based on price and the decal that I will stick on there.


Well, not to blow my theory out the window, looked up Spirit tubing. This poster says, "seems pretty thin to fillet braze....... 0.5/0.38/0.5" adding that it wouldn't last long.

So that SL bike might end up being the keeper! 

Columbus Spirit tubing question

:lol: Richard Sachs comes back, "i'll GIVE you a set to use/try as a gateway drug to possibly getting your business (i import and distribute the SFL) atmo. i have used it exclusively since day one without issue (2005 or so). and for the last three seasons the rs 'cross team has used the lightweight set without a single failure or similar incident (except for dillon's frame which got trashed on the last lap of the last race in 2010 - the natz) when he did an endo after an obstacle on the far side of the course. these tube sets are not finite use materials." In response to other builders who stay away from Spirit because they're afraid of denting the top tube with the knee in a crash.


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> What exactly are we talkng about?


We're talking about 525 and 631...? 631 is an air hardening steel and 520 is not. Neither is heat treated. I made the same assumptions as you did WRT wall thicknesses on those tube sets, but i didn't check and haven't built a frame in >10 years. A quick gander around the internet and i can't find anyone selling 520/525 main tubes, so who knows. Wall thickness doesn't affect ride/handling in any real way.



Fredrico said:


> I wouldn't place much value in OS tubing for an all purpose road bike.


Funny, i feel the opposite, at least for anything i'd want to own. I ride a 61-63 though...



BikeLayne said:


> It's my first experience building a frame and it may just be a hunk of junk when I get it on the road. I hope not. Like I said before I bought the tubing set based on price and the decal that I will stick on there.


Your first bike will ride AWESOME. Even if it's a hunk of junk there's nothing like riding something you designed and built for yourself.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Well, not to blow my theory out the window, looked up Spirit tubing. This poster says, "seems pretty thin to fillet braze....... 0.5/0.38/0.5" adding that it wouldn't last long.
> 
> So that SL bike might end up being the keeper!
> 
> ...


Well I guess the thing is with the thinner tubes you also get a harder metal which I suppose balances things out. My Lighthouse is 4 years old next month and it has no dents but I have not fallen or had any adverse occurrence. However for a guy like me trying to build a frame with high end thin walled tubing would be a bad idea. The hard metal would be miserable for me to try and miter, cut, file and shape. 
For me I think that the Columbus SL tubing will be the only tubing I work with. If you can build a good bike with proper alignment and clean brazed lugs then you should have a bike that you can be proud of and enjoy riding. So we shall see how it turns out.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> Yes, opposite because the owners of bamboo fly rods do not deny they feel more connected to the rich history and tradition of fly fishing through the use of these rods.


interesting. when i ride one of my vintage steel lightweights, i never think of "the rich history and tradition" of the bike. i think of how wonderful it feels to ride it.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> To be truthful, I have mixed feelings about "that guy" you're talking about.
> 
> First, if he's got the money and enthusiasm, kudos to him, if he wants to ride the bike of his favorite pro team. Only in cycling can a middle aged guy gaining weight and falling out of shape ride the same stuff as the pros. It's like being able to afford a Ferrari or Lamborghini, capable of riding as hard as the pros. Just knowing you have the cutting edge encourages getting out there and training and getting fitter. How many would pass up the opportunity to drive a formula one race car? That's the bike rider gets. It'll play like a Stradivarius.
> 
> ...


I don't have any problem with someone who thinks their needs are the same as Cavendish and buys accordingly. None what so ever. Good for them if that's what they like and enjoy.

Where I do have a problem is when that same same guy starts berating other people who make choices more in line with their talent and needs. Like a certain someone who just screams 'luddite' at the slightest hint of someone feeling they are better off with something not the so-called latest and greatest.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

blackfrancois said:


> interesting. when i ride one of my vintage steel lightweights, i never think of "the rich history and tradition" of the bike. i think of how wonderful it feels to ride it.


My steel bike isn't vintage, it's new, but all I think about is how much nicer than my carbon bike it rides. And personally I disdain most of what I know about "the rich history and tradition" of bike racing. From what I can tell it's largely a history of drugs and cheating and the last thing I want to do it honor it with anything I use. So the whole nostalgia thing doesn't really apply to me and I suspect a lot of people who like steel bikes.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> My steel bike isn't vintage, it's new, but all I think about is how much nicer than my carbon bike it rides. And personally I disdain most of what I know about "the rich history and tradition" of bike racing. From what I can tell it's largely a history of drugs and cheating and the last thing I want to do it honor it with anything I use. So the whole nostalgia thing doesn't really apply to me and I suspect a lot of people who like steel bikes.




Somebody, PLEASE rep this guy, because I can't!


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

It's just a bicycle and little reason for name calling. Just ride the bike you want and be happy. If your going to win the big event then go by a nice speedster bike and blitz the competition. Have fun. If the Battaglin frame makes your eyes sparkle then consider the purchase and enjoy a beautifully crafted bike. Don't forget to fund your Roth Ira and 401K however. You will get old someday and will need funds. So don't spend it all.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> My steel bike isn't vintage, it's new, but all I think about is how much nicer than my carbon bike it rides. And personally I disdain most of what I know about "the rich history and tradition" of bike racing. From what I can tell it's largely a history of drugs and cheating and the last thing I want to do it honor it with anything I use. So the whole nostalgia thing doesn't really apply to me and I suspect a lot of people who like steel bikes.


You have a great point about "the rich tradition" of pro racing. It's still a kick knowing you're riding a replica of the guys you admired and tried to emulate when falling in love with cycling. Not all pro bikes ride that great, anyway, so you still have to choose from quite a few, some good, some not so good.

Battaglin's current offerings recall the days of skinny tubes, chrome lugs, and such, definitely an appeal to nostalgia, but they enter a market for steel largely untapped by manufacturers since the '00s. Like lemmings, manufacturers follow the latest technological innovations so as not to lose "market share." 

I see cars going the same way. They all look like Ford Focus or Hyundai, kind of like bike helmets marketed in more pedestrian looking rounder shapes, "wide rims" and "gravel bikes." Now we not only have to buy a carbon race bike for the competitive events, but a sturdy steel bike for exploration of the back roads. Gosh, who woulda known? 

This Battaglin pictured looks like it can do it all! The whole point of steel, IMO.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> You have a great point about "the rich tradition" of pro racing. It's still a kick knowing you're riding a replica of the guys you admired and tried to emulate when falling in love with cycling. Not all pro bikes ride that great, anyway, so you still have to choose from quite a few, some good, some not so good.


My point was the exact opposite of what you think it was. I've never admired or emulated any pro-cyclist and my choice of getting a steel frame has absolutely nothing to to with history of the sport.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> My point was the exact opposite of what you think it was. I've never admired or emulated any pro-cyclist and my choice of getting a steel frame has absolutely nothing to to with history of the sport.


No it wasn't.

I agreed on your argument ignoring the rich tradition of pro racing and going with what works. But then added riding what the pros ride is for many a lot of fun. Different strokes for different folks. 

Those who buy a steel bike today aren't emulating the pros, though. The pros are riding carbon!


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> No it wasn't.
> 
> I agreed on your argument ignoring the rich tradition of pro racing and going with what works. But then added riding what the pros ride is for many a lot of fun. Different strokes for different folks.
> 
> Those who buy a steel bike today aren't emulating the pros, though. The pros are riding carbon!


okay, guess I misunderstood.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> okay, guess I misunderstood.


My fault. I put it badly not separating my thoughts!


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

To start with, wasn't it you who posted "None of the sane people posting here have said or are arguing that steel is superior. Just that steel isn't the same option is was in the 1970's and before and you don't seem to realize that".

Wasn't it also you who got your panties in a wad when I suggested that If you don't ride steel for performance, it's likely you ride it because of cycling tradition. I made it clear that I have no issue with that. Your hyper sensitivity again saw that as an insult.

So now we know that you don't ride steel for superior performance and you don't ride it because of tradition. We also know that you have very thin skin combined with childish tendencies. What you've yet to make clear is why you ride steel. You could have saved us a lot of time by simply telling us why.


Jay Strongbow said:


> I don't have any problem with someone who thinks their needs are the same as Cavendish and buys accordingly. None what so ever. Good for them if that's what they like and enjoy.
> 
> Where I do have a problem is when that same same guy starts berating other people who make choices more in line with their talent and needs. Like a certain someone who just screams 'luddite' at the slightest hint of someone feeling they are better off with something not the so-called latest and greatest.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

My son went to the University of Montana and while he was there did some fishing around the rivers of Missoula Montana. I visited him several times and it truely is the place where the river runs through it. The place is just drop dead beautiful. He earned his Masters and graduated earlier this year and is back home living in San Jose. He is married and is teaching High School now. Anyway I asked him about fishing stuff. I do not fish myself. 

So, I asked him if he thought Bamboo poles were the best and he said.

"I don't know but I saw people using them".

I asked him what kind of fishing pole did he think was the best kind and he said.

"The kind that's free"

That's the story from a young man with a Masters degree. He also has a couple KOM's that he picked up at home after he graduated from San Francisco state and was waiting to head out to Missoula. He can drink coffee while riding the rollers which he did a lot of in Missoula.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> To start with, wasn't it you who posted "None of the sane people posting here have said or are arguing that steel is superior. Just that steel isn't the same option is was in the 1970's and before and you don't seem to realize that".
> 
> Wasn't it also you who got your panties in a wad when I suggested that If you don't ride steel for performance, it's likely you ride it because of cycling tradition. I made it clear that I have no issue with that. Your hyper sensitivity again saw that as an insult.
> 
> So now we know that you don't ride steel for superior performance and you don't ride it because of tradition. We also know that you have very thin skin combined with childish tendencies. What you've yet to make clear is why you ride steel. You could have saved us a lot of time by simply telling us why.


I think Jay said he likes the ride of his steel bike and that's all he needs to feel good about choosing it as an option to his carbon bike.

The fact Battaglin is now back specializing in their tried and true steel bikes, made of Columbus SL with steel forks and chromed lugs no less, is tapping into a strong niche market for top of the line bikes that are brought in about half as expensive as the carbon offerings. We have a legitimate choice, each with its advantages and handicaps, both of equal quality, but each with its own personality. Each category has good choices and bad choices, and rider basically pays for what he gets.

So far, we've established carbon is great for racing and steel is great for touring, commuting, and anything else. Since most of us don't race, ergo, steel would be the "best" choice. Of course exceptions abound, like the new Specialized Roubaix with the elastomer shocks on the one side, and .5/.35/.5 super thin walled Spirit steel bikes that could hold their own easily in the TDF, on the other side.

Its like, one doesn't explore the countryside in an F-16, nor wage battle in a Piper Cub. That plane has survived 75 years basically unchanged. It works for the purpose, as steel does for 90% of bicycle applications.

But that's ok. Enjoy the cutting edge!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> .....like the new Specialized Roubaix with the elastomer shocks on the one side.....


Are you talking about those Zertz inserts?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

That's precisely what we haven't established. What we have done is establish that a small handful of folks who have had both types prefer steel. What marketing numbers suggest is that the vast majority of high end road bike purchasers buy carbon.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that a high percentage of high end purchasers have previously had steel bikes and now prefer carbon for most types of riding--sunday afternoons on the MUT may be an exception.


Fredrico said:


> I
> 
> So far, we've established carbon is great for racing and steel is great for touring, commuting, and anything else. Since most of us don't race, ergo, steel would be the "best" choice. Of course exceptions abound, like the new Specialized Roubaix with the elastomer shocks on the one side, and .5/.35/.5 super thin walled Spirit steel bikes that could hold their own easily in the TDF, on the other side.
> !


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Well for me I find the Battaglin frame and the article kind of exciting. I do believe there is a serious niche market for steel frames out there. I was just in the Rock Lobster frame shop and he is backlogged for months on his custom frames.

Anyway after going back and reading the article there were a couple of things that I found interesting.

They are giving a 1 million mile warranty on the frame and it follows the frame and not the customer. I have been doing 4000 miles a year since I retired and that would be 250 years before the warranty expires. Since I get Social Security they would probably put out a hit on me because they would have to start taxing rich people because of the old guy that never dies. 

Also they guarantee delivery of a custom frame within 30 days or it's free. 

CNC mitering is awesome and they hand chrome plate the lugs which provides a very thick chrome plating job for longevity. After all it has to last hundreds of years. 

That's pretty cool. I wish I could have one.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

You continue batting about 0 when it comes to telling us what other people said/mean.

But I am pleased that you've come to your senses and now realize the serious inferiority of steel bikes and the crooks who beat unsuspecting suckers out of their hard earned money by making them.


Fredrico said:


> I think Jay said he likes the ride of his steel bike and that's all he needs to feel good about choosing it as an option to his carbon bike.
> 
> The fact Battaglin is now back specializing in their tried and true steel bikes, made of Columbus SL with steel forks and chromed lugs no less, is tapping into a strong niche market for top of the line bikes that are brought in about half as expensive as the carbon offerings. We have a legitimate choice, each with its advantages and handicaps, both of equal quality, but each with its own personality. Each category has good choices and bad choices, and rider basically pays for what he gets.
> 
> ...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think it's a pretty safe bet that a high percentage of high end purchasers have previously had steel bikes and now prefer carbon for most types of riding--sunday afternoons on the MUT may be an exception.


But the thing is that you're going to continue to age, and slow as you age, and none of those modern super bikes are going to help you beat that.

Sorry for your luck.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Lombard said:


> Are you talking about those Zertz inserts?


Is that what they call 'em? Or am I confusing them with the laminations in the seat stays of the Trek Madone?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> You continue batting about 0 when it comes to telling us what other people said/mean.
> 
> But I am pleased that you've come to your senses and now realize the serious inferiority of steel bikes and the crooks who beat unsuspecting suckers out of their hard earned money by making them.


Troll! :nono:

Do you race? I only pretend, lately on the local MUTs! I get compliments on both my steel "vintage" bikes all the time! I'd love to play on a Pinarello Dogma/F8, but then I ask myself, "Why?" It just doesn't add much to the experience! The 2 bikes still ride as good today as they did the day I bought them. Why retire them to the junk bin? What's the point, other than showing off that you can afford to squander way too much money on questionable performance advantages? 

I'm sure as hell not going to sink upwards of $5,000 on a bike I ride on errands and 20 mile Sunday afternoon rides on the MUTs. I also don't have any sponsors, team mechanics, or follow vehicles. If I decide to do a 60 mile round trip out to Leesburg, VA, It's nice to have faith the bike will get me home!

Hey man, the crooks are selling you 11 speed cassettes and press fit bottom brackets. The bikes I bought in '84 and '85 never wore out, except for chains and free wheels, and rims twice, handlebars once, pedals once, all from crashes, over 70,000 miles. Oh, and a dog bit my rear wheel and broke the spoke flange on the hub, so I had to rebuild another 36 spoked wheel on the same rim. Both frames, BBs, headsets, forks, have held up superbly well, long after the times owners get nervous about aluminum or carbon bikes and try to dump them for the next lust. 

The marketers love planned obsolescence. If everybody buys one bike and rides it for 30 years, they go out of business. Talk about "crooks who beat unsuspecting customers out of their hard earned money!" :nono:


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> I think it's a pretty safe bet that a high percentage of high end purchasers have previously had steel bikes and now prefer carbon for most types of riding--sunday afternoons on the MUT may be an exception.


I think the thread has well established that custom steel bike frames is a niche market. Everybody agrees that aluminum and carbon frames dominate sales. It's not relevant to me. I do not care what others ride or what the Pro's ride. I just hope they enjoy riding the bike they purchased or the team provided.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

SwiftSolo said:


> ... now realize the serious inferiority of steel bikes and the crooks who beat unsuspecting suckers out of their hard earned money by making them.


wow. did a beautiful steel lightweight run over your family or something? 

i'm sorry.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Is that what they call 'em? Or am I confusing them with the laminations in the seat stays of the Trek Madone?


Whatever you call either one, they are nothing more than a gimmick. The only thing silicon inserts serve is to weaken the frame. Nothing more. As I have said all along, tire choice and pressure will make a far more noticeable difference in vertical compliance than any frame material or frame shapes and these will make more difference than tiny silicone blobs in the fork and stays. The only item on a road frame that may make a noticeable difference is the Isospeed decoupler on the Trek Domane and ever that isn't noticeable for some riders.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Whatever you call either one, they are nothing more than a gimmick. The only thing silicon inserts serve is to weaken the frame. Nothing more. As I have said all along, tire choice and pressure will make a far more noticeable difference in vertical compliance than any frame material or frame shapes and these will make more difference than tiny silicone blobs in the fork and stays. The only item on a road frame that may make a noticeable difference is the Isospeed decoupler on the Trek Domane and ever that isn't noticeable for some riders.


The lengths that both bicycle manufacturers and cyclists will go to avoid the use of high volume tires is simply astounding. It's nothing new as can be seen here..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums/72157630274562864

or here









Tires are the answer, but gimmicks prevail.


----------



## Easyup (Feb 26, 2012)

That is a nice looking bike but is at a very high price point for entry into the market. My guess is soon distributors will be discounting.
Would't it be boring if we all liked the same things in life.
I have too many steel frames, Italians, Americans and one Japanese, as well as a Vitus 979 and for some reason a '94 Trek 5500.
Ever since I bought the Trek every few years I get the latest carbon offering including Specialized, Cannondale, Orbea, etc. and marvel at my speed up hills and overall times. Within 6 months or so they get sold.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

blackfrancois said:


> wow. did a beautiful steel lightweight run over your family or something?
> 
> i'm sorry.


lol I was thinking same thing. Swiftsolo is so anti-steel and anti-rim brakes that reading him bash steel is a little comical at times. There's a guy that I ride with that sounds like Swift. This is guy is almost 60, and he espouses the latest and greatest tech, always buying the latest things that come out, reasoning that it'll help him ride faster. For example, he recent got a disc frame, then put on aero wheel, Sram Etap, etc... but I easily pass him on the hills,.. I giggle and say "watts per kilo"... then on the downhill I also pass him and I'd say "steel is heavy, fast on the down". Drives him nuts! lol


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

velodog said:


> But the thing is that you're going to continue to age, and slow as you age, and none of those modern super bikes are going to help you beat that.
> 
> Sorry for your luck.


Neither is steel...

Or aluminum, or titanium, or composites....

Ride what you like for whatever reason you want.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Well I want a 1 million mile warranty from now on. Nothing else will do being a guy that prefers to have the money then the cheaply made junk it will buy.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

sorry, error in response.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

I am 68y/o and a mere shadow of my former self. However I will make my 100miles this week and 4000 for the year. But I agree that as you age you slow down and no matter how many bike gimmicks you purhcase it will not change the course of time. It just continues to march on.

I guess I am just grateful to be the last man standing as in I am the only over 65y/o cyclist in the county. My riding partner is 64y/o but he seems to be running out of steam for riding and has not been out for a while.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> lol I was thinking same thing. Swiftsolo is so anti-steel and anti-rim brakes that reading him bash steel is a little comical at times. There's a guy that I ride with that sounds like Swift. This is guy is almost 60, and he espouses the latest and greatest tech, always buying the latest things that come out, reasoning that it'll help him ride faster. For example, he recent got a disc frame, then put on aero wheel, Sram Etap, etc... but I easily pass him on the hills,.. I giggle and say "watts per kilo"... then on the downhill I also pass him and I'd say "steel is heavy, fast on the down". Drives him nuts! lol


Your riding buddy doesn't know that little bit of weight keeps the wheels on the tarmac and adds "oomph!" punching through that wall of air. 

And climbing, forget it! Steel responds faithfully, in the saddle or standing up, canceling out any slight weight handicap. Carbon and aluminum are "dead." The heavier the rider, the deader they handle. They don't "spring" back and return the energy lost pushing down on the crank. 

I've ridden aluminum bikes that were a few pounds lighter than steel, but they didn't climb worth a damn. They held their lines but weren't "resilient" like steel. That old "modulus of elasticity" comes naturally with steel. Engineers have been trying to work carbon to act like that for years, to the point they have to put special shock absorbers in the seat stays to make up for the deficiency. :frown2:


----------



## bubble (May 19, 2007)

Even swift solo has to agree that the Battaglin Power+ is damn sexy.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> The lengths that both bicycle manufacturers and cyclists will go to avoid the use of high volume tires is simply astounding. It's nothing new as can be seen here..
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums/72157630274562864
> Here's the elegant solution, taking full advantage of the resiliency unique to steel!
> ...


Here's the elegant solution taking full advantage of the resiliency unique to steel:

Hetchins curly stays, vibrant stays, hellenic stays


----------



## HFroller (Aug 10, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> That's precisely what we haven't established. What we have done is establish that a small handful of folks who have had both types prefer steel. What marketing numbers suggest is that the vast majority of high end road bike purchasers buy carbon.
> 
> I think it's a pretty safe bet that a high percentage of high end purchasers have previously had steel bikes and now prefer carbon for most types of riding--sunday afternoons on the MUT may be an exception.


People buy what's in the shop, and most frames in the shop, even the middle (and lower!) end frames are carbon today. 

"Sunday afternoons on the MUT". 

Kristof Allegaert won the Transcontinental 2016. 
3915 km between Geraardsbergen (Belgium) and Canakkale (Turkey) unsupported, in 8 days, 15 hrs and 2 min. When he arrived he had a 300 km lead on the second rider. 

He rides crap, I mean steel. Here's his bike:
Transcontinental 2016: Kristof Allegaert's Jaegher Interceptor | road.cc

If steel is good enough for Allegaert, it's certainly good enough for me. But I didn't find it in the shop, so I bought carbon.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Here's the elegant solution taking full advantage of the resiliency unique to steel:
> 
> Hetchins curly stays, vibrant stays, hellenic stays


Elegant? I guess that's subjective. Esthetically, it looks bent to me (it may very well have practical value - I'm in no position to know - but I have a suspicion). 

Unique? Definitely, but steel doesn't have nearly the 'potential' for being "unique" that composites do. And many unique things have been done in other metals as well..

If you want to go completely off the rails....


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Here's the elegant solution taking full advantage of the resiliency unique to steel:
> 
> Hetchins curly stays, vibrant stays, hellenic stays


I know a guy that has a Hechins. It's has such ornate lugwork..


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Migen21 said:


> Elegant? I guess that's subjective. Esthetically, it looks bent to me (it may very well have practical value - I'm in no position to know - but I have a suspicion).


Here's an explanation.

Hetchins curly stays, vibrant stays, hellenic stays

I've heard the reason that advertising wasn't allowed at races so the stays identified the maker.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Migen21 said:


> Elegant? I guess that's subjective. Esthetically, it looks bent to me (it may very well have practical value - I'm in no position to know - but I have a suspicion).
> 
> Unique? Definitely, but steel doesn't have nearly the 'potential' for being "unique" that composites do. And many unique things have been done in other metals as well..
> 
> If you want to go completely off the rails....


:lol: That's no doubt why Hetchins never made it out of a very small niche market! The curves don't go very well aesthetically with the straight main triangle tubes. You're right. They're bent. But they worked. "Elegant" not aesthetically, but as a very simple technical solution to the challenges of shock absorption, taking full advantage of the properties of steel. :thumbsup: 

Vibrations travel in straight lines. Put a curve in the conductor and the vibrations dissipate. Similar to changing diameters of main triangle tubes in carbon. Thinning the top tube down by the time it gets to the seat tube presumably reduces shocks from the front end.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Fredrico said:


> Here's the elegant solution taking full advantage of the resiliency unique to steel...


if you want your 23mm tires to ride like 25's and that brand new brooks to feel already broken in, you merely need a touring frame with a longer wheelbase. 

my '80 grand jubilé's wheelbase was 2" longer than my '76 grand record. but i didn't suffer at all on the climbs, because the bike fit me so well.










but long, full-on touring bikes aren't as sexy, i guess.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> if you want your 23mm tires to ride like 25's and that brand new brooks to feel already broken in, you merely need a touring frame with a longer wheelbase.
> 
> my '80 grand jubilé's wheelbase was 2" longer than my '76 grand record. but i didn't suffer at all on the climbs, because the bike fit me so well.
> 
> ...


Awesome bike! Short stem, sitting up a bit more to balance fore aft, I can see that it would fit very well at the saddle height shown.

The guy who made my commuter stuck with short 39 inch wheel base but put 42 cm chain stays on it so when carrying a load on the rack would sit up over the wheel, not behind it. It steers well around corners. But I had to put a long stem on it for proper reach, which could have been better taken care of by moving the front wheel out another inch in front. The longs stem puts a little too much weight over the front wheel. Although 73 degree steering angle insures straight line stability, I still have to get way back on the saddle to load up the rear wheel for steady descents. Fore-aft balance is perfect when carrying something on the rear rack.

Frankly, I would think the longer wheel base like you say, would give the bike straight line stability and all day comfort, which would be really nice on a touring bike. The longer chain stays also climb very well, despite what one might expect, that short chain stays bringing the rear wheel under the saddle delivers power more efficiently.

That Grand Jubilee is awesome! :thumbsup:


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

The Flying Pidgeon is at 75 million bikes and still manufactured with steel. That bike is actually used for transportation and business. So you have a young guy that just got his Carbon hauler bike and he comes up on GrandPa that has been riding the same Flying Pidgeon that he got when he was a young man. The kid blisters right past GrandPa. Then later in the day they are at the market and they both load up with supplies and goods and start off and the young mans carbon bike snaps like a twig and the old man quietly smiles and rides down the road. And the world moves on.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

BikeLayne said:


> I am 68y/o and a mere shadow of my former self. However I will make my 100miles this week and 4000 for the year. But I agree that as you age you slow down and no matter how many bike gimmicks you purhcase it will not change the course of time. It just continues to march on.
> 
> I guess I am just grateful to be the last man standing as in I am the only over 65y/o cyclist in the county. My riding partner is 64y/o but he seems to be running out of steam for riding and has not been out for a while.


If someone can develop a frame material that can counter the effects of aging, that would be a real breakthrough. I see a lot of older riders and while they have lost some power, they still have good endurance. When I was younger I was always impressed with those fast older riders. Now that I'm in my mid-fifties I am even more impressed


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> lol I was thinking same thing. Swiftsolo is so anti-steel and anti-rim brakes that reading him bash steel is a little comical at times. There's a guy that I ride with that sounds like Swift. This is guy is almost 60, and he espouses the latest and greatest tech, always buying the latest things that come out, reasoning that it'll help him ride faster. For example, he recent got a disc frame, then put on aero wheel, Sram Etap, etc... but I easily pass him on the hills,.. I giggle and say "watts per kilo"... then on the downhill I also pass him and I'd say "steel is heavy, fast on the down". Drives him nuts! lol


We need people like that to keep our economy humming.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

blackfrancois said:


> if you want your 23mm tires to ride like 25's and that brand new brooks to feel already broken in, you merely need a touring frame with a longer wheelbase.


No. If you want your 23mm tires to ride like 25mm tires, you need to get 25mm tires.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

DaveG said:


> If someone can develop a frame material that can counter the effects of aging, that would be a real breakthrough. I see a lot of older riders and while they have lost some power, they still have good endurance. When I was younger I was always impressed with those fast older riders. Now that I'm in my mid-fifties I am even more impressed


 I think at my age the frame material does not make much difference. Reasonable comfort is good, and a bike that can take some gravel or hard pack once in a while. I will stick with steel but I would like to have a Calfee carbon bike also. Not enough to actually purchase one but if my fig tree starts growing Calfee carbon frames then I will pluck one off.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

You need to develop a sense of humor. I pointed out fredricos warped understanding of others posts by using a warped understanding of his posts---seemingly it went over your head.

To be clear, I think classic steel bikes are unmatched in beauty and find historic pro racing a beautiful tragedy. Cyclists willing to trade longevity for glory (before there was much money involved) speaks to a passion that is understandable in a tragic way. One of the things that motivates me to return to the historic passes of the Giro each year is to view the homage/shrines to these cyclists and experience the pain of these climbs ( at half the wattage). The respect that locals have for climbing cyclists is unmatched anywhere else that I've ridden. 

Finally, you know what they say about those who are so insecure that they have to talk about the size of their unit? It's good that these internet forums give the pathetic a place to fantasize publicly.


aclinjury said:


> lol I was thinking same thing. Swiftsolo is so anti-steel and anti-rim brakes that reading him bash steel is a little comical at times. There's a guy that I ride with that sounds like Swift. This is guy is almost 60, and he espouses the latest and greatest tech, always buying the latest things that come out, reasoning that it'll help him ride faster. For example, he recent got a disc frame, then put on aero wheel, Sram Etap, etc... but I easily pass him on the hills,.. I giggle and say "watts per kilo"... then on the downhill I also pass him and I'd say "steel is heavy, fast on the down". Drives him nuts! lol


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

SwiftSolo said:


> You need to develop a sense of humor. I pointed out fredricos warped understanding of others posts by using a warped understanding of his posts---seemingly it went over your head.
> 
> To be clear, I think classic steel bikes are unmatched in beauty and find historic pro racing a beautiful tragedy. Cyclists willing to trade longevity for glory (before there was much money involved) speaks to a passion that is understandable in a tragic way. One of the things that motivates me to return to the historic passes of the Giro each year is to view the homage/shrines to these cyclists and experience the pain of these climbs ( at half the wattage). The respect that locals have for climbing cyclists is unmatched anywhere else that I've ridden.
> 
> Finally, you know what they say about those who are so insecure that they have to talk about the size of their unit? It's good that these internet forums give the pathetic a place to fantasize publicly.


ugh you like to talk about insecurity? It's you.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

So a 5 lb heavier bike with poor brakes is the answer? I take it that math may not be required in your profession?


velodog said:


> But the thing is that you're going to continue to age, and slow as you age, and none of those modern super bikes are going to help you beat that.
> 
> Sorry for your luck.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

SwiftSolo said:


> So a 5 lb heavier bike with poor brakes is the answer? I take it that math may not be required in your profession?


There is no answer and math and my profession has nothing to do with it. 

We live, we get old, we slow down and eventually die. It don't matter what you're riding or how superior your choice makes you feel, we all slow down and the fancy do dads, well, the young guys and gals pass us up no matter what they're riding.

You can add that up any way you want.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Wow, have you shared this revelation with the rest of the world? 

To make sure I understand, an old guy who can only put out say 200 watts average on a 7% 7 mile climb will not experience the difference in time that a young guy with a 300 watt output will on a 5 lb heavier bike on the same climb?

My calculator shows something different. 5 lbs extra weight will cost the old guy about 2 minutes and 15 seconds while it will only cost the young guy a little over a minute on that same climb.

While the youngster will have bragging rights over his buddies with the same talent, the old guy will be able to take a nap before his show up.

It is true that at some point we stop trying to be stronger or smarter than we were yesterday. It's called death! Admittedly, for some, that occurs 30 years before burial.

To save you time, "yesterday" means the day before today.


velodog said:


> There is no answer and math and my profession has nothing to do with it.
> 
> We live, we get old, we slow down and eventually die. It don't matter what you're riding or how superior your choice makes you feel, we all slow down and the fancy do dads, well, the young guys and gals pass us up no matter what they're riding.
> 
> You can add that up any way you want.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow, have you shared this revelation with the rest of the world?
> 
> To make sure I understand, an old guy who can only put out say 200 watts average on a 7% 7 mile climb will not experience the difference in time that a young guy with a 300 watt output will on a 5 lb heavier bike on the same climb?
> 
> ...


Speaking as an old guy my thoughts are: The faster I ride the sooner I get home to empty the dishwasher. So why hurry up for that? It's like sprinting to the Gallows.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

BikeLayne said:


> The faster I ride the sooner I get home to empty the dishwasher. So why hurry up for that? It's like sprinting to the Gallows.


philosophy!

now then, what does Sisyphus ride?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

BikeLayne said:


> Speaking as an old guy my thoughts are: The faster I ride the sooner I get home to empty the dishwasher. So why hurry up for that? It's like sprinting to the Gallows.


I guess you can brag to the wife while emptying the dishwasher.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow, have you shared this revelation with the rest of the world?
> 
> To make sure I understand, an old guy who can only put out say 200 watts average on a 7% 7 mile climb will not experience the difference in time that a young guy with a 300 watt output will on a 5 lb heavier bike on the same climb?
> 
> ...


Whatever you think you know, myself, and most others here that you are continually trying to prove wrong, have not stopped trying to be stronger or smarter, we just don't have the same need to prove ourselves as some others. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't defend our choices against those who think that theirs is the "only way".

You come here to beat your chest about your ability and choices, but wasn't it you who berated aclinjury for internet bragging about his riding abilities? Yet here you are doing the same.

Just put your johnson, with a small j, back in your pants and enjoy your choices, and allow others to enjoy theirs.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

blackfrancois said:


> philosophy!
> 
> now then, what does Sisyphus ride?


Wouldn't he be riding the heaviest bike?


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow, have you shared this revelation with the rest of the world?
> 
> To make sure I understand, an old guy who can only put out say 200 watts average on a 7% 7 mile climb will not experience the difference in time that a young guy with a 300 watt output will on a 5 lb heavier bike on the same climb?
> 
> ...


5 lbs is a massive exaggeration. A typical CF frame is maybe 900-1000 grams and a typical comparably sized steel bike maybe 1700-1800. The lightest CF frames are just under 700 grams. The lightest steel bikes maybe 1400-1500grams. If you are going to use math to make a point you have to actually input valid data.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

DaveG said:


> 5 lbs is a massive exaggeration. A typical CF frame is maybe 900-1000 grams and a typical comparably sized steel bike maybe 1700-1800. The lightest CF frames are just under 700 grams. The lightest steel bikes maybe 1400-1500grams. If you are going to use math to make a point you have to actually input valid data.




Exactly. And even IF there were a 5lb. difference in frame weight, might that extra 5lbs. on the bike be an incentive to lose 5lbs. on the engine? Just sayin'.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

blackfrancois said:


> philosophy!
> 
> now then, what does Sisyphus ride?



No it's not philosophy, it's just humor..


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

velodog said:


> Wouldn't he be riding the heaviest bike?


Probably what ever bike he rode on he would never actually get to the top. No PR for poor Sisyphus.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

velodog said:


> I guess you can brag to the wife while emptying the dishwasher.


 When I get home from a bike ride I strut around like a Peacock telling my tales of Awesome. My wife hangs on every word while I tell her how I almost passed a fly while clanking the dishes.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Lombard said:


> Exactly. And even IF there were a 5lb. difference in frame weight, might that extra 5lbs. on the bike be an incentive to lose 5lbs. on the engine? Just sayin'.


And let's not forget that little extra mass will keep that bike strong when whacking up those hills! It won't start lagging when the grades get steeper or rider gets fatigued. 4 out of 5 carbon wonders won't stand up to the punishment. It's all about modulus of elasticity. Carbon doesn't work with the rider like steel does. What's a pound or two of weight? About one water bottle. Drink it up!

My two steel bikes climb like bandits. The slight weight handicap is easily overcome with a little grit that steel invites. 200 watts? Make it up at 210 watts! Big deal.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> My two steel bikes climb like bandits. The slight weight handicap is easily overcome with a little grit that steel invites. 200 watts? Make it up at 210 watts! Big deal.


I think I remember that you are quite a strong rider. Weren't you the guy who said you climb in the big ring? I doubt you could notice much difference in climbing ability between steel and carbon.


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

Noticed that True Temper is bailing out of the steel bicycle tubing business. Certainly not a vote of confidence in the market.

True Temper to exit bike tubing market next year | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News



BRAIN said:


> Erspamer told BRAIN in an email that the company decided to pull out of the bike market to focus resources on its golf, hockey and lacrosse business. "The financial reference represents, in short, the fact that the steel bicycle tubing market is so small compared to our core markets that our equipment does not efficiently produce small batch runs," Erspamer said. "The thought of investing in capital to try and service a market as small as this does not make financial sense."


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

mtrac said:


> Noticed that True Temper is bailing out of the steel bicycle tubing business. Certainly not a vote of confidence in the market.
> 
> True Temper to exit bike tubing market next year | Bicycle Retailer and Industry News


While True Temper will be a considerable loss, they aren't the only tubing manufacturer out there. The market share just wasn't large enough to appease their bean counters, and the share of the market that they drop will be picked up by the other manufacturers of bicycle tubing.


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

velodog said:


> The market share just wasn't large enough to appease their bean counters, and the share of the market that they drop will be picked up by the other manufacturers of bicycle tubing.


If lacrosse is a more viable business than cycling then I expect them to follow True Temper out the door.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

velodog said:


> While True Temper will be a considerable loss, they aren't the only tubing manufacturer out there. The market share just wasn't large enough to appease their bean counters, and the share of the market that they drop will be picked up by the other manufacturers of bicycle tubing.


It's going to be a big hit to Henry James cycles as they are strickly a True Temper dealer. It's actually an interesting place and their lugs, bottom brackets, drop outs, braze on's are American made as is True Temper tubing. Their steel frame components are top notch quality.

I guess they will have to pick up a different brand of tubing when their supplies run low. There are a lot of tubing brands out there for a niche market so time will tell how it goes.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

I try to find a good coffee shop. Refueling allows me to ride right up till diner when dishwasher duty has magically been done by someone else out of necessity? 

Besides, eating in my stinking riding gear serves notice that I really need a shower and gets me out of the dishwasher loading duty as well.

I'm still working on dealing with lawn mowing duty.


BikeLayne said:


> Speaking as an old guy my thoughts are: The faster I ride the sooner I get home to empty the dishwasher. So why hurry up for that? It's like sprinting to the Gallows.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

mtrac said:


> If lacrosse is a more viable business than cycling then I expect them to follow True Temper out the door.


Probably a little early to panic.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

BikeLayne said:


> It's going to be a big hit to Henry James cycles as they are strickly a True Temper dealer. It's actually an interesting place and their lugs, bottom brackets, drop outs, braze on's are American made as is True Temper tubing. Their steel frame components are top notch quality.
> 
> I guess they will have to pick up a different brand of tubing when their supplies run low. There are a lot of tubing brands out there for a niche market so time will tell how it goes.


Sure. Columbus and Reynolds are staying in the game, aren't they? They keep coming up with new formulas to compete with carbon weight weenies. The fact Columbus is still making SL says there's still a big enough demand. 

True Temper was always at the lower end of steel bikes, anyway. It was never hugely competitive with Columbus and Reynolds, more so as the steel market shrank into a "niche" market supplied by small custom builders. 

Henry James investment cast lugs have been around since the 70s. How long has True Temper tubing been around? I think James picked up distributorship when it was already on its way out in the late 80s.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> *True Temper was always at the lower end of steel bikes, anyway*. It was never hugely competitive with Columbus and Reynolds, more so as the steel market shrank into a "niche" market supplied by small custom builders.


that's not the case. Most high end builders in the US use True Temper and have been for a while. not exclusively but as one of their options depending on what the customization calls for.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Lombard said:


> I think I remember that you are quite a strong rider. Weren't you the guy who said you climb in the big ring? I doubt you could notice much difference in climbing ability between steel and carbon.


Climbing in the big ring is a young man's game. I've always been too old for that. But yeah, I guess one could say 42, 43, or 44 are big rings compared to those wimpy 39s and crap, 34s! :nono: What a waste of quality training time! 

Have to admit at age 73, climbing in 42-22 feels much like climbing in the big ring, but on a nice responsive steel bike, it's doable! I may surrender to lower gearing one day, but so far prefer to keep the old faithful DeRosa period correct, just for grins when out riding.

The aluminum and carbon i've ridden seemed to get less responsive the harder its punished. Steel on investment cast lugs never did that. No matter how hard I work, it keeps responding the same as at lower intensities. I imagine that problem has been overcome with carbon designs in the last 6 or 7 years since I last rode carbon. The carbon I've ridden that didn't give up was also too stiff! On steel you get both response and comfort. With carbon up until recently anyway, it was always one or the other.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

mtrac said:


> If lacrosse is a more viable business than cycling then I expect them to follow True Temper out the door.


It could be worse... True Temper could have quit the cycling biz to focus on making those broom things you use in Curling


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> The aluminum and carbon i've ridden seemed to get less responsive the harder its punished. Steel on investment cast lugs never did that. No matter how hard I work, it keeps responding the same as at lower intensities. I imagine that problem has been overcome with carbon designs in the last 6 or 7 years since I last rode carbon. The carbon I've ridden that didn't give up was also too stiff! On steel you get both response and comfort. With carbon up until recently anyway, it was always one or the other.



Your observations about carbon are interesting. My first carbon bike was a noodle. It felt compliant, but was super flexy and not confidence inspiring. My newer carbon bike feels stiff, planted, responsive and confidence inspiring. I believe the feeling of responsiveness to be as a result of a wider BB, more than anything else. However, I am not convinced the responsive feeling in the BB is more than just that - a feeling. That being said, feeling is important for the enjoyment we have on our bikes. That is far more important than gaining a few watts here and there.

My steel bike feels more like my newer carbon bike - stable and responsive. I also cannot tell a difference in compliance between the two carbon bikes. The steel bike is slightly more compliant because it has wider tires than either of the carbon bikes.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

DaveG said:


> It could be worse... True Temper could have quit the cycling biz to focus on making those broom things you use in Curling


 A bicycle rider would modulate that puck right in there and slam on the disc brakes. Then UCI would test everybody for steroids and try to remember if disc brakes are in or out as they cannot keep it straight.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Sure. Columbus and Reynolds are staying in the game, aren't they? They keep coming up with new formulas to compete with carbon weight weenies. The fact Columbus is still making SL says there's still a big enough demand.
> 
> True Temper was always at the lower end of steel bikes, anyway. It was never hugely competitive with Columbus and Reynolds, more so as the steel market shrank into a "niche" market supplied by small custom builders.
> 
> Henry James investment cast lugs have been around since the 70s. How long has True Temper tubing been around? I think James picked up distributorship when it was already on its way out in the late 80s.


 While reading free magazines at Barnes and Noble I came across a Reynolds tubing article. They said that their business is growing again. Talked about all the tubings and what's up with the Taiwan factory.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> that's not the case. Most high end builders in the US use True Temper and have been for a while. not exclusively but as one of their options depending on what the customization calls for.


Yes, ok, True Temper did bring out some quality tubing in the 80s, but it took a while for it to become truly competitive with Reynolds for touring bikes and Columbus for racing bikes. Their website doesn't even mention bicycle tubing. They probably jumped on the bandwagon during the bike boom of the mid 70s, same time Trek and Specialized started, when steel was king.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> Yes, ok, True Temper did bring out some quality tubing in the 80s, but it took a while for it to become truly competitive with Reynolds for touring bikes and Columbus for racing bikes. Their website doesn't even mention bicycle tubing. They probably jumped on the bandwagon during the bike boom of the mid 70s, same time Trek and Specialized started, when steel was king.


True temper was competing with name recognition, not quality.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

what high-end bikes were made with true temper? custom builder?

i've had a couple bikes made of true temper, the best was a mid-level '88 trek 400t. [meh.]

i would never spend too much on a mass market bike made with true temper, just because it doesn't have the name recognition of reynolds, columbus, tange, vitus ... or even ishiwata.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Air hardened tubings are not suitable for brazing. So many modern tubings these days are air hardened and they need to be tig welded. I do not know what True Temper tubing is in that regard. But I wonder if they have moved on over recent years. Just tossing it out as it may have something to do with it. I got that information on air hardened tubings from the Rock Lobster web site. 

The better Reynolds tubing are all air hardened. Rock Lobster bikes, Santa Cruz prefers to tig weld his frames which makes him a good choice in my opinion for a modern steel frame. Air hardened tubing is very strong and you really need a lathe or some kind of machine to miter the tubing. Good miters come from a machine anyway. 

A Tig welded frame from Rock Lobster will be a stronger frame then a lugged or fillet brazed frame. It will also be lighter.


Edit: I went to the Reynolds web page and they do not support the Rock Lobster statement. They said that air hardened tubes can be brazed but the preferred method is tig welding. Different words I guess.

True Temper does have air hardened tubings as well as the regular stuff that a home frame maker might want to try. True Temper Versus I think it's called. I have never seen a bike with True Temper that I know of anyway. I do not really check out decals if I see a bike someplace. I stopped going into bike shops pretty much when the products that I might want to buy stopped being there. I have never ridden a carbon bike and most likely never will or aluminum and Ti actually. 

Remember I am not an expert and can easily be wrong.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

BikeLayne said:


> Air hardened tubings are not suitable for brazing. So many modern tubings these days are air hardened and they need to be tig welded. I do not know what True Temper tubing is in that regard. But I wonder if they have moved on over recent years. Just tossing it out as it may have something to do with it. I got that information on air hardened tubings from the Rock Lobster web site.
> 
> The better Reynolds tubing are all air hardened. Rock Lobster bikes, Santa Cruz prefers to tig weld his frames which makes him a good choice in my opinion for a modern steel frame. Air hardened tubing is very strong and you really need a lathe or some kind of machine to miter the tubing. Good miters come from a machine anyway.
> 
> A Tig welded frame from Rock Lobster will be a stronger frame then a lugged or fillet brazed frame. It will also be lighter.


Interesting. Here's some info I found on Reynold's site: Reynolds Technology


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Testing the strength of Al vs. Carbon. I looked for a test like this involving steel frames, but couldn't find any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Testing the strength of Al vs. Carbon. I looked for a test like this involving steel frames, but couldn't find any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs



I watched it and it made aluminum look pretty bad but then GCN came on next and they were less harsh about it and said that engineering and the aluminum alloy cannot be ignored.

However my friend rode a Felt aluminum bike for some time. He is a big guy and rides about 150mi a week. His frame snapped on him and he bought a Carbon bike at the LBS. I forget what it's called as I have never seen the brand before but he says it's very comfortable and for him comfort is the most important thing in a bike.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Fredrico. You could get wealthy by sharing your wisdom with the pro teams. Imagine how much faster they would be if they were to learn that *"extra mass will keep that bike strong when whacking up those hills! It won't start lagging when the grades get steeper or rider gets fatigued. 4 out of 5 carbon wonders won't stand up to the punishment. It's all about modulus of elasticity. Carbon doesn't work with the rider like steel does. What's a pound or two of weight? About one water bottle. Drink it up!"* :

Do you have a special orifice where you store these important tidbits?


Fredrico said:


> And let's not forget that little extra mass will keep that bike strong when whacking up those hills! It won't start lagging when the grades get steeper or rider gets fatigued. 4 out of 5 carbon wonders won't stand up to the punishment. It's all about modulus of elasticity. Carbon doesn't work with the rider like steel does. What's a pound or two of weight? About one water bottle. Drink it up!
> 
> My two steel bikes climb like bandits. The slight weight handicap is easily overcome with a little grit that steel invites. 200 watts? Make it up at 210 watts! Big deal.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

The fastest bike up Alpe D'Huez while racing in the TDF was in 97. It was a Willier 7005 Aluminum bike with 9 speed Dura Ace. Marco Pantani holds the record which still stands even though he had a high Hematocrit level. The fastest bike up the mountain that is not tainted with a Drug scandal is Quintana in 2015. Obviously carbon. Quintana is down the list at 14th place. Many of the drug rides are not disqualified but many are. You just have to look at Wiki to see how it goes. 

The fastest ascent for an America was Armstrong but he was disqualified and he had 2nd place on a carbon Trek until he got the boot. Lemond is the second fastest American in his 1986 climb riding a Carbon bike. The first carbon bike ever to win the TDF.

Indurain is 15th place riding a steel bike in 95. His 5 victories were all ridden on steel and in fact Indurain is the last steel bike to win the TDF. He did not get a drug user ding on the list. 




-

<tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">

</tbody>
<body id="cke_pastebin" style="position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow: hidden; left: -1000px;">
Thibaut Pinot20.3<abbr class="unit" title="kilometers per hour" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(229, 229, 229); cursor: help;">km/h</abbr>-155642:18

<tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">

</tbody></body>


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

blackfrancois said:


> what high-end bikes were made with true temper? custom builder?


I can't think of an American high end builder that doesn't use True Temper (along with others). Indy Fab, K. Bedford, Mosaic, and Spectrum are about as high end as it gets in the States and they use it, for example. 
If you asked which American custom builder didn't use True Temper I'd probably have to google search to come up with one.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Did the last page of this thread get corrupted? I can't see it anymore.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Test.


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

I think BikeLayne's table nuked it. You can see the last page in printable version.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

BikeLayne said:


> No it's not philosophy, it's just humor..


that's what will rogers would say too.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Fredrico. You could get wealthy by sharing your wisdom with the pro teams. Imagine how much faster they would be if they were to learn that *"extra mass will keep that bike strong when whacking up those hills! It won't start lagging when the grades get steeper or rider gets fatigued. 4 out of 5 carbon wonders won't stand up to the punishment. It's all about modulus of elasticity. Carbon doesn't work with the rider like steel does. What's a pound or two of weight? About one water bottle. Drink it up!"* :
> 
> Do you have a special orifice where you store these important tidbits?


Yes. Work your ass off! Don't wimp out!

That is all.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

why won't the tenth page of this thread load? it just comes up as a blank page.

and why am i asking this question here if i can't read any replies to it?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

*That is pretty strange (trying different approach on the off chance that we're printing white on white)*


blackfrancois said:


> why won't the tenth page of this thread load? it just comes up as a blank page.
> 
> and why am i asking this question here if i can't read any replies to it?


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

You can see page 10 here.

Battaglin to focus on steel and phase out carbon fiber frames

A few more replies and vB will start a new page.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Lombard said:


> Testing the strength of Al vs. Carbon. I looked for a test like this involving steel frames, but couldn't find any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs


Everybody thinks steel frames are durable. I thought so too until my Ritchey fell over when leaned against a post and the top tube got dented. The wall thickness is so thin that it dents easily. Plus, steel rusts.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Testing the strength of Al vs. Carbon. I looked for a test like this involving steel frames, but couldn't find any: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xreZdUBqpJs


I've seen some of these tests and they're pretty impressive, yet carbon riders are constantly worried about microscopic chips and frame failure. Go figger.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

mfdemicco said:


> Everybody thinks steel frames are durable. I thought so too until my Ritchey fell over when leaned against a post and the top tube got dented. The wall thickness is so thin that it dents easily. Plus, steel rusts.


Steel dents and bends out of shape, but doesn't break, like aluminum or carbon. A substantial side impact on 0.5 mm thick tubing, steel or carbon, will damage the tube, but in steel won't weaken the tubing structurally, while in carbon the fibers will break like wood and be structurally destroyed. Steel can be bent back into shape without losing any structural integrity. 

I'm riding two bikes that have proven that point. One with a dent on the top tube whacked by the handlebars in a crash about 60,000 miles ago, the other that bent the fork back and crimped the top tube at the head lug in horrendous crash about 55,000 miles ago. Both bikes, the latter bent back into alignment, still ride the same as they did when they were new. If there's a problem, it will show itself well before catastrophic failure, which is reassuring on a long ride out to the middle of nowhere that rider will make it home. 

Specialization: for the local crits, splurge on a nice 14# carbon wonderbike; but for training rides out in the country, take the steel bike. Rider'll get a "training effect" from the slightly heavier weight and be stronger on the carbon bike.


----------

