# Why don't pro racers go back to steel?



## KennyG (Mar 6, 2007)

I would think that at the pro racing level, riders would be more interested in having the strongest, best riding material - not in having the latest and lightest carbon frames. Pro racers used steel forever before aluminum and carbon came along. Many (if not most) seasoned riders feel that steel provides the best ride quality. With components packages as light as they are now, and the 15lb weight limit for racing bikes, why not use a high-end 3 to 3.5lb steel frame rather than a frail sub-900 gram carbon frame and have to add weight somewhere to the bike to get it up to the required 15lbs? This just does not make sense to me to keep making carbon frames lighter and lighter then add weight to the bike to keep it legal?!?!?!? Is it simply a matter of marketing - racers being forced to use what thier sponsers want to manufacture and sell to the non-racing consumers?


----------



## magnolialover (Jun 2, 2004)

*Because...*



KennyG said:


> I would think that at the pro racing level, riders would be more interested in having the strongest, best riding material - not in having the latest and lightest carbon frames. Pro racers used steel forever before aluminum and carbon came along. Many (if not most) seasoned riders feel that steel provides the best ride quality. With components packages as light as they are now, and the 15lb weight limit for racing bikes, why not use a high-end 3 to 3.5lb steel frame rather than a frail sub-900 gram carbon frame and have to add weight somewhere to the bike to get it up to the required 15lbs? This just does not make sense to me to keep making carbon frames lighter and lighter then add weight to the bike to keep it legal?!?!?!? Is it simply a matter of marketing - racers being forced to use what thier sponsers want to manufacture and sell to the non-racing consumers?


Mostly because there are light and strong carbon bikes now, whereas in their early years (like 10+ years ago), they were light and frail. This isn't the case any longer. Steel is fine, but it's not as high performance, and as strong as say, carbon fibre. Why use a 3.5-4 lb steel frame when you can have one that is about 800 grams, or slightly above, that is going to be stiffer, lighter, and stronger? It doesn't make sense does it? Nope. 

It's not about marketing, it's about using the highest, and best technology available to you as a professional cyclist, and steel isn't the highest technology, or the best technology for racing, in my opinion. Sure, there are great steel frames out there, but why bother?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Whatever happened to Michael Bolton?


----------



## allons-y (Nov 15, 2006)

KennyG said:


> Is it simply a matter of marketing - racers being forced to use what thier sponsers want to manufacture and sell to the non-racing consumers?


Yes. 

What steel frame manufacturer has a few million lying around, not to mention building ~ 100+ bikes for the team. 

The companies that can easily give away a hundred bikes and a fat chunk of cash tend to be the major manufacturers. They want to sell their highest end bikes that they can charge the most for. Those aren't steel. How many trek's did lance "sell"? How many cervelo's have csc sold? 

While you or I may not go out and buy a bike just because a guy in the tdf rides it, joe public might. That gets into do sponsorships work/make sense.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

allons-y said:


> Yes.
> 
> What steel frame manufacturer has a few million lying around, not to mention building ~ 100+ bikes for the team.
> 
> ...


magnolialover gave one great reason, the other is indeed marketing. They ride what the sponsors give them, and the sponsors want to sell carbon fiber. Is it easier / cheaper to make a CF frame? Seems like no to tell you the truth. So the marketing angle is innovation and performance, and you show case that with pro riders.


----------



## KennyG (Mar 6, 2007)

Let me ask it this way - What would pro riders choose to race with if they could choose from any frame/material? Would they really all be riding carbon?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

KennyG said:


> Let me ask it this way - What would pro riders choose to race with if they could choose from any frame/material? Would they really all be riding carbon?


There are pro-riders in recent times that have ridden rebadged bikes instead of their team issue bike. From what I recall, none of them were steel. That should answer your question.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

I have run into quite a few ex-pros here in Europe. What frame material did they choose to ride on after the contracts ran out? Well, I can tell you that not a single one of them was riding a steel bike, most were on carbon frames .... including Bernard Hinault.

Even Merckx only keeps a very small production of steel frames for "the American market" -- in a recent interview here, he admitted being puzzled by the US demand for steel.

Just saying....


----------



## stihl (Oct 27, 2005)

Would the high end steels be as stiff as a high end CF frame?


----------



## stihl (Oct 27, 2005)

*Maybe..*

it's the other way around..

There is a big marketing hype around steel nowadays..

Oops did I just say that?  just sayin..




philippec said:


> I have run into quite a few ex-pros here in Europe. What frame material did they choose to ride on after the contracts ran out? Well, I can tell you that not a single one of them was riding a steel bike, most were on carbon frames .... including Bernard Hinault.
> 
> Even Merckx only keeps a very small production of steel frames for "the American market" -- in a recent interview here, he admitted being puzzled by the US demand for steel.
> 
> Just saying....


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

stihl said:


> it's the other way around..
> 
> There is a big marketing hype around steel nowadays..
> 
> Oops did I just say that?  just sayin..


Interesting point. Perhaps. There are materials better in every category as compared to steel. I'm actually more surprised that TI didn't become the current CF. 

I'm still of the mind that my next bike will be TI.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

carbon's not "frail"


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

stihl said:


> Would the high end steels be as stiff as a high end CF frame?


No question, steel can be as high performence (stiff or whatever you want) as anything available. With the 6.8 kilo rule in effect they have no problem being built to that weight limit. Mass production carbon/ aluminium frames that come if but a few sizes at high pricepoints are able to afford to sponcer teams. The only small manufacturer I know that sponcers is Independent Fabracation and thats a very small local team. Many bikes used in the TDF are no longer the best bikes available. Not even close. Pros ride what they are told but if you look at the private collections you will find steel, ti, alminium, and carbon. A great bike can be made from any of those.


----------



## stihl (Oct 27, 2005)

*No doubt*



homebrew said:


> Many bikes used in the TDF are no longer the best bikes available. Not even close. Pros ride what they are told but if you look at the private collections you will find steel, ti, alminium, and carbon.



No doubt that a great bike can be made out of steel. Certainly, one _can_ be made to be under the UCI weight limit with a little diligence.

But are you sure about what you just posted about the bikes at the TDF? You think that if given the choice, most pros will use steel frames as opposed to, say, a Scott Addict or a Look CF frame?


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

KennyG said:


> Let me ask it this way - What would pro riders choose to race with if they could choose from any frame/material? Would they really all be riding carbon?


Yes, Carbon. I' would.


----------



## wheezer (Sep 21, 2004)

I'm not by any means the oldest rider on the BB, but I've been riding steel frames for the better part of a decade. I've uttered "steel is real" on numerous occasions. After a coupe of years on aluminum and now my first on a high end CF frame, I can tell you that it takes no more than 3 pedal strokes to tell the difference in pedaling efficiency and power between a steel frame and even an aluminum one, nevermind carbon. When you're pedaling thousands upon thousands upon thousands of strokes every race and every training day, all those little efficiencies add up to one huge advantage of one material over another. Then there's the age thing. If you're a 25-year-old racer and you think your back hurts now, just wait.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

For goodness sake, carbon fibre is NOT frail. Any freaking material can fail and snap just like that given the right impact force and torque and all that.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

It is 100% marketing. If a major sponsor had a steel frame that they really believed they could market into their flagship (say, Pinnarello) you would see their sponsored pro team riding it. Mercury and CSC were the last teams I saw on steel. Right now, if your not making a carbon frame, you're not selling significant numbers into the high end market unless you literally own the market for another material (Litespeed comes to mind). They are just chasing the market. 

Oh, and carbon is not a frail material. Marketing or not, if the riders didn't have 100% confidence in it then they would refuse to ride races with cobbled roads on it.


----------



## funktekk (Jul 29, 2006)

This thread is a joke right?

A lugged steel frame does have its strong suits, but pure perfomance isn't one of them. 

The 15lb rule at first seems to releagate the sub 900gram frames to vanity, but if you look a little deeper you see riders taking the weight they save on their frame and going with more comfortable saddles, super strong handlebars, and heavy power meters.


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

There are plenty of examples of riders using steel frames recently in the cobbled classics...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/apr06/roubaix06/?id=/tech/2006/features/roubaix_bikes1 

I have two custom steel frames - they serve two different purposes and the stiffness and ride qualities are starkly different. One is a TiG welded DeSalvo racer that weighs in at just over 16 pounds with race wheels and an Ergomo Pro Power meter (that's a 56cm frame with a long (and level) top tube. The ride quality is good, the frame as stiff as anything I've had except maybe my P3C TT bike. The other steel frame is a fillet brazed Wolfhound. This frame and bike are pushing 20 pounds with lower level componentry and handbuilt wheels. The ride quality is super smooth - the frame flexes a bit more, but it also has a narrower tube diameter. 

I've also had a custom Parlee Z1x which I loved - it weighed in at just over 15 with the same build and geometry as the DeSalvo. The ride quality and stiffness of the two were actually very similar. 

My guess is that if a major manufacturer with a pro sponsorship came out with a steel frame that they wanted to highlight as a top level racer - you'd see riders racing on it with virtually no impact on performance.


----------



## SleeveleSS (Jun 3, 2007)

funktekk said:


> A lugged steel frame does have its strong suits, but pure perfomance isn't one of them.


Who was talking about lugged steel? We all know a steel frame for the pro's would be something like the new 953 stainless or one of the other "super" steels manufacturers could rave about.


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

Just an example. Magnus Baksted (sp?) Will not ride carbon. Went thru at least 4 aluminium frames in on season due stress cracks. His team made him a rebaged ti so he could race. My guess is that he would be well served with one of the new super steels
. 
Some of the best carbon frames are not even used by the pros to race, except after suspention perhaps (Tylor Hamletons custom Parlee on the Mt. Washington hill climb)

The question of carbons durability is one of words IMO. Carbon does not fatique the way steel and aluminium will over time so in that aspect is much more durable. It is a shown over and over however that it will fail and fail in a big way if damaged or in a sudden impact at a higher rate then steel, etc. The lighter the frame gets the more prone it gets to such abuse. This question is not an issue for a pro however as they get new bikes every year and have backup bikes, training bikes and bikes for the cobbles, etc

edit: regarding Backstedt, this was according to a 2006 inteview were he stated that he had some very bad issues with carbon frames. At the time of the interview he had just broken his third aluminium frame of the season and had just recieved a rebaged ti frame. Looks like he changed his mind on carbon. Me bad

I am not suggesting pros would flock to steel or anything else but if you ask the mechanics I bet steel/ti would get the vote. If you were responceable for 40 plus bikes and limited time what would you rather deal with?


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

"Why don't pro racers go back to steel?"

I believe the short answer is that CF is a better material.


----------



## Fivethumbs (Jul 26, 2005)

That steel Wilier is pretty cool. I'd ride it.


----------



## David Kirk (Mar 6, 2005)

The simple fact of the matter is pro teams do not pick frames (or materials for that matter) based on performance or weight. It's not really a factor. Teams take bids from manufacturers. The company that pays the most gets the riders on the bikes. The bike company pays very big money for the team to ride the bikes. So it only makes sense that the bike company would want to promote the bikes they most want to sell. Those bikes are carbon fiber now. The ease of manufacture and the low cost of labor make them irresistible the the bike maker.

When I was involved with Serotta and the Coors Light TDF Team way back when Serotta paid well over $100G a season and supplied all the bikes they needed. The last season I recall we gave them over 70 bikes. The bike builder is also responsible for lining up the component co-sponsors. In Serotta's case this meant negotiating contracts with Campy to supply parts. If Serotta couldn't get a co-sponsor signed on they had to buy the parts for the team. 

It costs much more to do this now than it did when the Coors light team was involved. Since there are no major bike companies using steel as their flagship models it makes sense that the peloton isn't using them.

As for ex-pros using steel or not. Ex-pros never buy bikes. They know someone who will give them something. If they wanted steel they'd have to go out of the way to buy it.

Lastly........I think it would be foolish to believe that any major pro would be helped or hurt by the frame they use..... regardless of material. Whoever wins whatever race would do it the same way if the bike was steel, carbon, Al, Ti........ whatever. It's the lungs and legs and fit, not the material.

dave


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

David Kirk said:


> The simple fact of the matter is pro teams do not pick frames (or materials for that matter) based on performance or weight. It's not really a factor. Teams take bids from manufacturers. The company that pays the most gets the riders on the bikes. The bike company pays very big money for the team to ride the bikes. So it only makes sense that the bike company would want to promote the bikes they most want to sell. Those bikes are carbon fiber now. The ease of manufacture and the low cost of labor make them irresistible the the bike maker.
> 
> When I was involved with Serotta and the Coors Light TDF Team way back when Serotta paid well over $100G a season and supplied all the bikes they needed. The last season I recall we gave them over 70 bikes. The bike builder is also responsible for lining up the component co-sponsors. In Serotta's case this meant negotiating contracts with Campy to supply parts. If Serotta couldn't get a co-sponsor signed on they had to buy the parts for the team.
> 
> ...



Correct Dave. As I mentioned in the ROI thread teams pay in the neighborhood of 2 million euros now to bid on teams(or did before the scandals). I was told one year to expect to see CSC on Orbea. There was even a CSC Red Opal in the line-up, but when the dust settled Cervelo re-upped, apparently coming with an extra 200k euros over the Orbea amount.


----------



## Fivethumbs (Jul 26, 2005)

No wonder those Chinese made Soloists are so darned expensive! Sheesh!


----------



## cogswell23 (Aug 15, 2007)

homebrew said:


> Just an example. Magnus Baksted (sp?) Will not ride carbon.


False.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> Whatever happened to Michael Bolton?


His hair got caught in the chain.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Einstruzende said:


> Is it easier / cheaper to make a CF frame?


In the long run it will be- the material isn't expensive. It does have to be baked, but essentially you just glue the tubes together and throw the frame in the oven- no cold welds- no burned through welds- no messy welds. 

My brother gave me a carbon fiber pen for Christmas. It will revolutionize the writing industry. 

I'm going to miss metal :cryin:


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

Einstruzende said:


> Is it easier / cheaper to make a CF frame? Seems like no to tell you the truth.


I won't claim any expertise, just third-hand knowledge gained on the interwebs so there is definitely a grain of salt that I'll offer up. Most of what I've read indicates that for the big manufacturers, the high expense of carbon is in designing and building the molds. After that initial expenditure, the cost of mass producing a carbon frame is lower than a high end steel or alloy frame. How many big brands have abandoned metals at the high end of their product range?


----------



## chas (Aug 10, 2006)

California L33 said:


> It does have to be baked, but essentially you just glue the tubes together and throw the frame in the oven- no cold welds- no burned through welds- no messy welds.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm going to miss metal :cryin:


But you have to make the tubes first. And if you're using lugs, you have to make them too. And you have to get the layup right for each tube and each lug for each size frame. And you may need to make a mold for each size and each model. There definitely are no weld-related issues you need to worry about, but there are certainly plenty of other things you need to get right if you're making your own carbon frames. It's not quite as plug and play as you're describing.

No need to :cryin: over the fate of metal frames. If anything, they are enjoying a resurgence in popularity at the moment, you just gotta know where to look. The NAHMBS just had it's second show showcasing the work of custom builders, and from what I hear, the turn out was phenomenal. There are lots of amazing builders out there doing steel or aluminum bikes. Here in the SF Bay Area there are probably 5-10 different builders; cities like Portland, NYC and Minneapolis have tons of small builders too. 

It's much more difficult to buy a high end steel frame off the shelve, but there are lots of options out there and not all of them have multi-year waiting lists.

*[email protected]*


----------



## nicks2192 (Jan 25, 2008)

i dont know why everyone thinks carbon is so weak and frail its not if a bike breaks its gonna break and i mean the frames look nicer than steel and also carbon is a natural shock absorber so its really not that bad


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Carbon is not an inexpensive raw material though less expensive than say, ti or branded exotic steel (frame makers must buy tubing at elevatev prices from Dedacci, Reynolds, True Temper etc.) but there are many other variables such as man power, all the CF processes I have seen require many more work stations (and workers) from where the raw material is cut to where it is painted. There is waste as well, seams don't always form right, wrinkles happen and stuff like that. Any of those means the whole item must be thrown in the garbage as flaws in cured carbon can't be re-done. CF, at least good CF is very pricey to do well, just in different ways.

Most bigger brands have abandoned metals in their upper end simply because that market is very small and served well by the companies that specialize in it like Seven, Litespeed and the smaller custom houses. If something were to make steel "hot" again bigger brands would come back to it. Ultimately they all want to sell what customers want to buy. Right now that is carbon fiber.


----------



## cat4rider (Nov 10, 2006)

I think there a couple of good points...
Carbon, once the molds are created are "relatively" cheap to produce and you don't need talented workers to create the bike. 
Wtih steel, you have to have talented welders, which limits your outout as there probably aren't enough of them to create as many bikes as are sold, and you can't mass produce the new steels like 953 etc. 

Marketing works, carbon works well too. l've got my Stong, love it, race it, and if i had the money, might buy a carbon just for kicks...(I've gazed lustfully at a Kona King Zing...)


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

homebrew said:


> Just an example. Magnus Baksted (sp?) Will not ride carbon. Went thru at least 4 aluminium frames in on season due stress cracks. His team made him a rebaged ti so he could race. My guess is that he would be well served with one of the new super steels


Then this must be a Ti frame with a CF finish!  










This is CLEARLY a CF frame. CF can be a strong if not stonger than steel if made right.


----------



## Cruzer2424 (Feb 8, 2005)

*shrug* 

As much as I despise baseball... what about pro players and wooden bats? 

Not like there still isn't a market for high zoot, shotgun pellet filled, carbon fiber (yes, that too), etc etc... bats for non-pro players.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

Cruzer2424 said:


> As much as I despise baseball... what about pro players and wooden bats?


Major League Baseball requires players to use wood bats. If you've ever been to a college game, you'd notice almost no one uses a wooden bat--they don't perform as well (and they're not banned by NCAA).

Of course, there are always some annoying traditionalists trying to push a ban on all non-wood bats. I think people need to embrace technological advances in materials--whether they are for a bike or a bat.

...or maybe they should bring back the wooden bike wheel?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

MarvinK said:


> Major League Baseball requires players to use wood bats. If you've ever been to a college game, you'd notice almost no one uses a wooden bat--they don't perform as well (and they're not banned by NCAA).
> 
> Of course, there are always some annoying traditionalists trying to push a ban on all non-wood bats. I think people need to embrace technological advances in materials--whether they are for a bike or a bat.
> 
> ...or maybe they should bring back the wooden bike wheel?


I think wood bats become very expensive. Especially with the trend towards very thin handles and thick barrels. Most bats are made of white ash which there was a shortage of I believe. Bonds was using a maple bat. Bats are able to be made out of maple because of new technologies which can dry it out and make it lighter. Hickory was used but is heavy.

I don't think the bats used in college allow one to truly assess the talent of the players. The sweet spot of an aluminum bat is much larger and many non wood bats also provide a trampoline effect.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I think wood bats become very expensive. Especially with the trend towards very thin handles and thick barrels. Most bats are made of white ash which there was a shortage of I believe. Bonds was using a maple bat. Bats are able to be made out of maple because of new technologies which can dry it out and make it lighter. Hickory was used but is heavy.
> 
> I don't think the bats used in college allow one to truly assess the talent of the players. The sweet spot of an aluminum bat is much larger and many non wood bats also provide a trampoline effect.


The reason major leaguers don't use aluminum bats is for safety. If Pujols/A-rod/Bond's were using an aluminum bat, they'd murder anyone playing in the infield. The argument is often made to ban aluminum bats for safety in college too, even though the talent pool is so much lower.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

There are a whole bunch of regulations that bats have to meet, in order to be allowed in college play. A baseball is going to travel fastest if hit on the sweet spot--and the rules require that speed and size to be essentially the same for wood and non-wood bats. The advantage of non-wood bats (that are already limited by NCAA regulations) is that it comes off of other areas of the bat better than a wood bat. Something in on the hands would be an easy infield out with a wood bat, but might make it through with a regulated non-wood bat.

It's not a safety issue--since it will still be slower than it would be off the sweet spot of a good quality wood bat. You could still argue the talent issue, but I think the main reason is cost and availability. It is much easier and cost-effective to make a high quality non-wood bat. In fact, I bet if they switched the entire NCAA to wood bats it would actually CREATE a safety issue. Quality would drop to meet availability demands and you'd see a lot of broken bats.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*oh I agree*



kbiker3111 said:


> The reason major leaguers don't use aluminum bats is for safety. If Pujols/A-rod/Bond's were using an aluminum bat, they'd murder anyone playing in the infield. The argument is often made to ban aluminum bats for safety in college too, even though the talent pool is so much lower.


that's a big part of it although I'm sure some big strong college kids are really ripping it to the infield and college infielders are not as talented in the field as pros. So that would make it really unsafe for college players too. Plus I would bet there are more bad hops on college diamonds than in pro stadiums.

I referred to this when I cited the trampoline effect which is also found in golf in metal "woods."

If aluminum bats were allowed in MLB they would have to move the fences back to 483 like the Polo Grounds or like 463 in Death Valley in the old Yankee Stadium. Then again the old Yankee Stadium had the short porch in right at 296. Many MLB players would hit over 100 home runs if they were allowed.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Makes sense*



MarvinK said:


> There are a whole bunch of regulations that bats have to meet, in order to be allowed in college play. A baseball is going to travel fastest if hit on the sweet spot--and the rules require that speed and size to be essentially the same for wood and non-wood bats. The advantage of non-wood bats (that are already limited by NCAA regulations) is that it comes off of other areas of the bat better than a wood bat. Something in on the hands would be an easy infield out with a wood bat, but might make it through with a regulated non-wood bat.
> 
> It's not a safety issue--since it will still be slower than it would be off the sweet spot of a good quality wood bat. You could still argue the talent issue, but I think the main reason is cost and availability. It is much easier and cost-effective to make a high quality non-wood bat. In fact, I bet if they switched the entire NCAA to wood bats it would actually CREATE a safety issue. Quality would drop to meet availability demands and you'd see a lot of broken bats.


So then it's like golf where an iron byron is used and the speed of the ball is measured off the bat at a certain swing speed? I didn't know there were limits on the bats although it makes complete sense.


----------



## tjanson (Nov 11, 2006)

One very big reason for carbon fiber is the qualities in the bike you can control by the shape, thickness, layup (weave orientation, etc), and type of the carbon fiber. You can vary anyone of these and change how the frame reacts to loads at a certain spot. With steel you are limited much more by the tubing manufacturing limitations, especially if you are buying it from a manufacturer. 
Theoretically, a CF frame can be alot better than a steel. Its is all about Performance vs. Cost....
Most carbon frames are engineered. Most steel frames are not...


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

Damn
I just bought a 20 yr old steel frame.
I guess I should have saved a few more pennies and gotten a CF.


----------



## teamcinzano (Jun 10, 2006)

The (partial) year that Van Petegem rode for Mercury, I remember him specifically complaining that they were stuck riding steel bikes. He couldn't believe it, and felt it was unprofessional of (Trek-made, designed, marketed) Lemond bikes to for them to ride steel. If I remember correctly, those bikes were 853, and his displeasure was broadcast in the run up to Flanders and Roubaix.


----------



## FSonicSmith (Jan 2, 2003)

1) It's great to see ITB folks chime in on this board, and David Kirk ought to be recognized by everyone here as one of the nicest and most knowledgeable folks ITB. Thanks for posting here Dave. 

2) I like bike riders and bike enthusiasts and have no desire to needlessly PO anybody, but those of you who bristle at the concept of CF being frail......please, get your head out of the sand. Don't you think there is a good reason that 90% of cf frames only come with a 3 or 5 year warranty (and the few with longer warranties build the price of a replacment into the initial purchase price)? 

3) It ought to be kept in mind that the superlight steel frames currently being offered are likewise not extremely durable. As of a year ago, I traded some e-mail with Sasha White of Vanilla who mentioned that though he could build (and does offer) a very light steel frame, it sacrifices durability in order to offer weight close to cf and al. 

4) It would be absurd for the Pros to go back to steel for the reasons already given. For those of us who love steel, it would be nice (and dream-like), but absurd. The cost of sponsorship drives everything. At the local level, among the Cat 2-3 riders who are mostly unsponsored (other than kit and maybe some entrance fees, but no free frames), I am seeing a lot more steel frames lately than I was just two or three years ago. IF, Strong, Steelman, Land Shark... Still not a majority by any means-Cervello, Trek, and Giant cf-with Fuji emerging lately-still dominate-but certainly more than before.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

cat4rider said:


> I think there a couple of good points...
> Carbon, once the molds are created are "relatively" cheap to produce and you don't need talented workers to create the bike.
> Wtih steel, you have to have talented welders, which limits your outout as there probably aren't enough of them to create as many bikes as are sold, and you can't mass produce the new steels like 953 etc.
> 
> Marketing works, carbon works well too. l've got my Stong, love it, race it, and if i had the money, might buy a carbon just for kicks...(I've gazed lustfully at a Kona King Zing...)


Your assumptions on carbon fiber construction are inaccurate. Unless you are using an injection molded process (think Campy Record crankset-smaller parts), the layup into the molds is done by hand prior to baking. That is the reason most carbon tube construction is done in Asia. It is more labor intensive than welding, and the raw materials are expensive (much more so than steel). Carbon fiber is used in defense, so the people claiming it is weak and fragile don't understand the application. Carbon doesn't like an impact load (which can cause delamination which weakens the structure), that is it's biggest drawback and the reason most road pros still rely on aluminum handlebars (continue riding after a crash as aluminum is more likely to simply bend).


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

They(Pro's) are paid to sell products. We (Not Pro's) ride what we want for our own reasons.


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

*Furry seat cusion's*

All that time in the saddle why dont they have furry seat cusions or gel covers.


----------



## Float (May 27, 2005)

I ride a steel bike in the 17lb range - Dedacciai 16.5 EOM

more info, http://www.tommasini.com/telai/ultrafire.html

Steel is the new carbon


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Mr. Scary said:


> ...the layup into the molds is done by hand prior to baking...
> 
> ...It is more labor intensive than welding...
> 
> ...and the raw materials are expensive (much more so than steel).


 I can't imagine any of these things will remain 'by hand' processes very long. And while CF may stay a relatively pricey material (compared to steel) for a while, it's only because steel has been made for so long and so much is used. The raw material for CF cloth is cheap, though the process requires relatively new technology. I think you'll see cost equalization in terms of price per application, if not price per pound, as CF production ramps up. CF is everything Fiberglas promised to be. If you didn't have to bake it, it would be nearly perfect.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Some awesome discussion here. Also note that, despite "only" a 3-5yr warranty on CF frames, they wouldn't offer them if they were dangerous. A liability lawsuit trumps your warranty argument.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

KennyG said:


> I would think that at the pro racing level, riders would be more interested in having the strongest, best riding material - not in having the latest and lightest carbon frames. Pro racers used steel forever before aluminum and carbon came along. Many (if not most) seasoned riders feel that steel provides the best ride quality. With components packages as light as they are now, and the 15lb weight limit for racing bikes, why not use a high-end 3 to 3.5lb steel frame rather than a frail sub-900 gram carbon frame and have to add weight somewhere to the bike to get it up to the required 15lbs? This just does not make sense to me to keep making carbon frames lighter and lighter then add weight to the bike to keep it legal?!?!?!? Is it simply a matter of marketing - racers being forced to use what thier sponsers want to manufacture and sell to the non-racing consumers?




What do you ride?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

lookrider said:


> that's a big part of it although I'm sure some big strong college kids are really ripping it to the infield and college infielders are not as talented in the field as pros. So that would make it really unsafe for college players too. Plus I would bet there are more bad hops on college diamonds than in pro stadiums.


For the numbers geeks, here's evidence that aluminum bats do change the game:
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/NCAA-stats.html

The major league rule against aluminum bats is comparable to the UCI weight limit, it is there for the safety of the athletes.

Regarding carbon vs steel, one argument I have heard is that with carbon, you can fine-tune exactly where the strength of the frame goes, i.e. lay up more material near BB etc.

I have not read anything about the years-long durability of carbon. I have noticed that the guys who ride carbon seem to change out their bike every couple of years, but that's probably selection bias.


----------



## dclee (Nov 16, 2004)

Trust me if pros wanted to ride steel they would be on them - look at Ulrich in the tours riding his own wheels and time trial bikes rather than the team issued Giant. If there was any performance benefit from riding steel at least some would be on it. The fact that basically zero pros ride steel bikes (for years now) speaks as much to their preference of frame material as it does to sponsorship obligations.

Do any of the people saying steel performs the same as carbon in a race environment actually race? I have raced on steel, aluminum and carbon, and in my opinion in terms of performance steel ranks behind aluminum and carbon bikes. It is a comfortable material, but tends not to be as light. If it is close to being as light as carbon or aluminum, it sure is not as stiff, which becomes very discernable in a race situation. 

The durability issue is moot, this is about performance now - not how the bike will perform tens years down the road. Carbon, and even aluminum, performs better than steel in a race environment where nimbleness and weight are at a premium over comfort.


----------



## Float (May 27, 2005)

*Not all steel is the same.*



dclee said:


> I have raced on steel.


Which steel?

I race an Easton scandium (Jamis) and a steel 16.5 EOM (Masi), both have carbon forks and carbon chain/seat stays. IMHO they out perform a price comparable carbon frame.




dclee said:


> aluminum and carbon, and in my opinion in terms of performance steel ranks behind aluminum and carbon bikes.


I've test ridden some carbon bikes that were noodles - price matters


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

I don't know whether pro's prefer steel or aluminum or carbon or ti, since I don't know any. I don't know whether steel or aluminum or carbon or ti races best, since I haven't raced high end versions of each. All I know is what I've observed from top pro's.

Consider Tom Boonen last year. He didn't like the carbon bike sent to him by Specialized, so he had them weld him a custom aluminum bike while they were finishing the SL2. Now Toms a rich man, he spends his offseason in Monaco, has plenty of money and sponsors, he doesn't need to bend over backwards for a bike manufacturer. It was a real coup for Specialized to land Tom and Paolo Bettini, so Spec would probably do a little extra for Tom or Paolo. If Tom Boonen really wanted to race a steel frame while he was waiting for his SL2, don't you think they would have put one together for him?

Same goes for Mario Cipollini. This year at the ToC, he didn't race a team bike. Instead, he had his own unmarked aluminum frame with Lightweight wheels. So we can assume Mario rides basically anything he wants. If Mario wanted to bring an unmarked steel frame to the ToC (a long, hard stage race which some pros said was some of the hardest time they've ever had in the saddle), don't you think he would have ridden steel. 

Really, I don't think the pros care too much about what material they ride. The only time I've seen pros really care is when it comes to fit. If they can't find a sponsored frame that fits them, they usually ride aluminum (Boonen '07, Óscar Pereiro '06, etc). The pros are fast because of their legs, not because of what they ride.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Boy, this thread is amusing. Good comments, you all.

Here's a few more: Steel? For Pro racers? 

They race on what works best, period! It's their job and if they aren't doing, for their employers, what they are paid to do, which is to race bikes with some success..then their employers hire someone else..So the Pro riders do everything they can think of to maximize their results...

Ya think some team might want to employ a rider with inferior results if he told them "Yeah, I may get dropped all the time but I ride a steel bike.." Probably not. Ya think if suddenly Boonen and McEwan and Canci..were to all win races on steel bikes, the rest of the pros would stick to carbon? Nope..Steel it would be..But it's not..

Do you see lottsa pro tennis players using small headed wooden rackets anymore? See a lot of steel racing sailboats, like back in the J-boat era? Steel F-1 cars? Nope!

When a new technology comes along, the old one fades away. 20 years from now, you think a competative bike might be built of steel? By then, the weight minimum will probably be revised to under 10lbs or something..

The original question, "-- --- go back to steel?" can be answered easily. They don't because nobody has recently won a pro cycling race on steel..
Don Hanson


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

Gnarly 928 said:


> The original question, "-- --- go back to steel?" can be answered easily. They don't because nobody has recently won a pro cycling race on steel..
> Don Hanson


i asked the question on another forum about the last steel win, and here is the answer: (i'm cutting and pasting)

"the last time big races were won (as opposed to ridden) on a steel bike would be 2001, when Peter van Petegen won Kuurne-Bruxelles-Kuurne and a stage of Paris-Nice riding a steel Lemond."

not as far back as one might think!


----------



## Bertrand (Feb 1, 2005)

How long ago was it that CSC were using Cervelo Prodigies in the Paris-Roubaix?


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Bertrand said:


> How long ago was it that CSC were using Cervelo Prodigies in the Paris-Roubaix?


2003, five years ago.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

2001 is still a looong time ago. Ages in terms of how far carbon bikes have come.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

Gnarly 928 said:


> They race on what works best, period!
> 
> Don Hanson


Actually no. That is not true. They race what they are told to race. The manufactures will make bikes in which they can make the most profit from. Then get their teams to race them. This has been going on since bike racing started. That was the whole point of it all. 

Teams don't choose their equipment based on what is best. They choose it based on who is going to give them the most money.


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

brianmcg said:


> Actually no. That is not true. They race what they are told to race. The manufactures will make bikes in which they can make the most profit from. Then get their teams to race them. This has been going on since bike racing started. That was the whole point of it all.
> 
> Teams don't choose their equipment based on what is best. They choose it based on who is going to give them the most money.


Not entirely accurate. Teams choose sponsors, based on most money. But do some research - plenty of riders over many decades have been on repainted/relabled bikes made by manufacturers other than the one sponsoring the team. Since we're talking steel, look into how many pros raced on rebadged Pegorettis back in the steel days, but to the best of my knowledge Pegoretti never sponsored one of the major teams. From waht I've read, Andy Hampsten won on a Landshark, and Landshark certainly never sponsored a big league team.

Seems like (and I don't know the data for sure, thus the "seems like") the bigger name the rider, the more freedom to ride a rebadged bike. Smart sponsors would rather have the stars win on a bike with that company's label but made by someone else, than lose on the company's own bike. I doubt, for example, if Trek had their britches in a wad when Armstrong was riding for US Postal and winning time trials on a rebadged Litespeed, before Trek got their own time trial frame nailed to his liking. Average Joe on the street couldn't tell from the photos who made the bike, they just saw "Trek", and average Joe sure bought a bunch more Treks after Armstrong started winning in the Tour.

Point is, the biggest of the big dogs have always had a bunch of degrees of freedom in riding what they want, so long as it has the sponsor's label. Doesn't seem these days like any of those biggest big dogs are barking for steel FOR RACING, though it may certainly be the case that many of them go for steel when racing days are done.


----------



## Ichijin (Aug 11, 2007)

If pro's have had unmarked aluminum frames, how would you know they were aluminum instead of steel? It would look identical.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Ichijin said:


> If pro's have had unmarked aluminum frames, how would you know they were aluminum instead of steel? It would look identical.


It would?

Steel frames have much smaller diameter tubing than aluminum frames.


----------



## Cruzer2424 (Feb 8, 2005)

I think the point of my baseball bat thought was missed...

Even though pros are using wooden bats, there is still a HUGE non-wood bat market... a lot. 

Not that I'm agreeing that pros should ride steel bikes, but I'm willing to bet if pros rode steel bikes, carbon bikes wouldn't lose their market.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

I remember the good old days (get off my lawn!), super light steel frames failed about as often as today's bikes, maybe more. We used to argue about why have a super lightweight bike because they were so frail. We shouldn't equate steel with durability just because it's steel. All bike materials can be durable, and all can be frail. Depends on how they build them. We can get a lighter bike with carbon these days with much higher durability than we can get with steel at the same weight and stiffness (light, stiff or durable, one will have to go to get a comparable steel frame). 10-15 years ago, carbon was still too unreliable and exotic, and steel made a lot more sense to me. But I still love steel frames. I'm no pro- I don't care if my steel frame weighs 3.5 pounds more than my carbon, its still a great bike to ride.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

tferris said:


> I'm no pro- I don't care if my steel frame weighs 3.5 pounds more than my carbon, its still a great bike to ride.


Both carbon _and_ steel have gotten better in the last ten to fifteen years. And a steel frame need not be 3.5 pounds heavier than its carbon brother. As a frinstance, Gunnar's air-hardened steel road frame weighs 3.6, the burlier cross frame 4.1.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Nobody's brought up the (to me) obvious chicken and egg argument. 

Goes like this: the pro's racing today are mostly in their 20's. Which means when they came up thru the ranks, steel was already a "dead" material. I wonder how many of today's pro's have even pedaled a "racing" steel bike.

But it's just pointless speculation; ride what you like. I ride steel, but I'm a 35+ perma 4 so who cares. If I ever decided to get serious, I'd probably shell out for an alu crit bike, simply because a stiff bike feels better in a crit. But I'd keep riding my heavy, flexy steel bike the rest of the time, because I just love the feel.

YMMV.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Is this a support group for dead horse floggers or something? Seriously, why would you even ask this question? Every industry that cares about strength/weight has moved towards composites. CF beats steel on every measure you care about for a bike design. Plus, steel bikes are downright ugly.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

stevesbike said:


> Plus, steel bikes are downright ugly.


Wrong.


----------



## Hand/of/Midas (Apr 15, 2008)

pretender said:


> Both carbon _and_ steel have gotten better in the last ten to fifteen years. And a steel frame need not be 3.5 pounds heavier than its carbon brother. As a frinstance, Gunnar's air-hardened steel road frame weighs 3.6, the burlier cross frame 4.1.



i ride a gunnar. its an amazing bike.

the super therm S3 tubing like indy fab is using and salsa used for a short time on the primero is light and stiff. my next road bike will be made of S3 steel tubing. and itll be lighter than the bike that lance rides. 

oh yea. and it will be able to be repaired 25 years later if i ever need it to be.
personally,i dont care what you all ride.


----------



## Guest (Apr 17, 2008)

Why on earth does this quetion keep coming back to life?

Pro riders ride what they are told to ride, period.

You have already had one of the finest framebuilders around, who just happened to be involved with a pro team in the past, explain the realities.

The bike companies sponsor teams as purely a marketing exercise and and they are looking to make a return on investment.

That means pump the frames with the highest profit margin, that means the CF frames, they are made in volume and profits are high.

That is what the bike cos. Want to sell, a lot.

It is a very easy equation. All the arguing about it here won't change it.

It's marketing, it's push the bikes with the highest profit margin.

Period.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

Cruzer2424 said:


> Even though pros are using wooden bats, there is still a HUGE non-wood bat market... a lot.
> 
> Not that I'm agreeing that pros should ride steel bikes, but I'm willing to bet if pros rode steel bikes, carbon bikes wouldn't lose their market.


There's a huge market for non-wood bats because they work better. You can be certain that many pro players would use non-wood bats, if permitted. 

It is not unlike people riding big-tube aluminum (ie: Cannondale, Klein) when heavy steel bikes were the norm--even though they weren't permitted at the pro level. Once cycling lifted the ban on modern materials and frame designs, pros took advantage of the allowed improvements.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

MarvinK said:


> There's a huge market for non-wood bats because they work better. You can be certain that many pro players would use non-wood bats, if permitted.
> 
> It is not unlike people riding big-tube aluminum (ie: Cannondale, Klein) when heavy steel bikes were the norm--even though they weren't permitted at the pro level. Once cycling lifted the ban on modern materials and frame designs, pros took advantage of the allowed improvements.


When was it they lifted this ban?? The only ban is the 6.8 rule and that you habe to use a diamond frame. It is only recently that the wheel list came in to being after I think the Spinergy Rev-X "issue".
AFAIK the ONLY restriction on new materials was a self imposed one until the material was not inferior to the status quo.

Merckx used Ti in the 70's as did Ocana
Hinault used CF in the mid 80's as did Lemond
Peugeot used CF in the early 80's
Kelly won Roubaix among other races on a bonded alloy Vitus
Teka were on ALAN frames in the late 70's


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

Basso just purchased a Seven. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Robin Williams gave comic relief as he purchased a IF 953 (does Lance have a secret in his closet?)


----------



## goldsbar (Apr 24, 2002)

Creakyknees said:


> but I'm a 35+ perma 4 so who cares.


That makes 2 of us!

Pros are mere billboards for advertisers. They ride what they're given. Sure, there's a couple of exceptions as noted in previous posts but for the most part they're just living advertisements.

Has anyone actually thought about bike materials while racing? I spend most of the time in the drops so comfort isn't exactly priority #1. That's not to say non-steel materials aren't comfortable, it just doesn't enter into the equation. I'm much more worried about my legs seizing up than how my bike handles road cracks. Sure, it's a bit different for the pros - the races are much longer, they put out far more power, etc. - but I imagine the core concerns are the same regardless of level.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> When was it they lifted this ban?? The only ban is the 6.8 rule and that you habe to use a diamond frame.



Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought there was a ban on the massive downtube sizes used in Cannondale & Klein frames. Could be wrong...


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

*If the bikes don't actually work very well, then..*



brianmcg said:


> Actually no. That is not true. They race what they are told to race. The manufactures will make bikes in which they can make the most profit from. Then get their teams to race them. This has been going on since bike racing started. That was the whole point of it all.
> 
> Teams don't choose their equipment based on what is best. They choose it based on who is going to give them the most money.


 So you are saying something like... (for instance) the Rock Racing team would ride K-mart bikes, if they got big bucks to ride them? Or some famous team would ride on Wal-Mart specials in the TDF, if Wal-Mart came up with the best sponsor's deal? But do you think that famous team would be invited back, if not one of it's riders even made the time cut? Of course, that is silly...a good rider could at least make the time cut on almost any bike..but come on..

At pro-level competition, riders (and in fact, whole teams) can't afford to give up any possible performance, no matter how small a percentage, and still have any chance at keeping their jobs. Teams can't keep 'racing' without at least the illusion of having the chance of winning a race..

So, if indeed the last Pro Cycling winner on a steel bike was like 6 years ago, and that was one win out of how many races, the odds against steel bikes being competative aren't very favorable. 

Now, if Pro Cycling was to take a page out of NASCAR's playbook...They would all be racing on Steel Beach cruisers or comfort bikes. Or to put it in motorcycle terms..They would be racing Harley Davidsons instead of Ducattis.. 

Don Hanson


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2008)

Gnarly 928 said:


> So, if indeed the last Pro Cycling winner on a steel bike was like 6 years ago, and that was one win out of how many races, the odds against steel bikes being competative aren't very favorable.
> 
> 
> 
> Don Hanson


That is the most convoluted reasoning I've seen in a while.

Come to think of it you are right. Steel bikes are not competitive in terms of profit per unit as compared to any high volume CF frame.


----------



## dead flag blues (Aug 26, 2004)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Now, if Pro Cycling was to take a page out of NASCAR's playbook...They would all be racing on Steel Beach cruisers or comfort bikes. Or to put it in motorcycle terms..They would be racing Harley Davidsons instead of Ducattis..
> 
> Don Hanson



I wish my Ducati had a carbon fiber frame. Is my steel frame good enough?


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

Gnarly 928 said:


> So you are saying something like... (for instance) the Rock Racing team would ride K-mart bikes, if they got big bucks to ride them? Or some famous team would ride on Wal-Mart specials in the TDF, if Wal-Mart came up with the best sponsor's deal? But do you think that famous team would be invited back, if not one of it's riders even made the time cut? Of course, that is silly...a good rider could at least make the time cut on almost any bike..but come on..
> 
> At pro-level competition, riders (and in fact, whole teams) can't afford to give up any possible performance, no matter how small a percentage, and still have any chance at keeping their jobs. Teams can't keep 'racing' without at least the illusion of having the chance of winning a race..
> 
> ...



you do realize that ducati's entry into motogp (the pinnacle of motorcycle road racing) the desmosedici , has a steel trellis frame, right? they did happen to win the rider's championship in moto gp last season with this "outdated technology"... 


about k-mart- do you think if k-mart actually sponsored a team, that the riders would be riding k-mart bikes? no, of course not. they would be riding whatever bike they wanted to rebadged and painted to look like k-mart bikes. bicycle racing has a well known history of this (see the lance armstrong litespeed/trek and the serrota/huffy team bikes for a well know example). 

yes, the last win on a steel bike was 6 years ago, but out of the 300 bikes competing that year and years before, how many of them were steel? practically none. odds are that a steel bike isn't going to win when 97% of the bikes racing aren't steel.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Where are the top riders deciding to ride steel bikes instead of whatever their team sponsors?

Oh, there aren't any... Case closed.


----------



## teamcinzano (Jun 10, 2006)

r_mutt said:


> yes, the last win on a steel bike was 6 years ago, but out of the 300 bikes competing that year and years before, how many of them were steel? practically none. odds are that a steel bike isn't going to win when 97% of the bikes racing aren't steel.


And as I said earlier in the thread, Van Petegem complained publicly about those Lemond bikes still being built with steel at a point when, for racing purposes, pros like him found aluminum to be superior. :mad2: I imagine the only reason those complaints were aired was because Mercury was such a clusterf*ck, but it was a specific complaint of one of the better classics riders of the day. My guess, steel feels noodly at EPO-induced power output levels-- you know, 450+ watts/hour.


----------

