# Why You Should be Riding Steel and not Carbon



## thien (Feb 18, 2004)

New article by Kurt Gensheimer - Check it out, weigh in with your thoughts in the comments section!

http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/blog/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-not-carbon/

Do you have a steel bike you've had forever?

Is there a steel option for those not willing to go the custom route?

Have a counter view point, why should you be riding Carbon and not Steel?


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Crap. I had a whole lot of stuff written out and just lost it.

The end result is that I have a CF bike and a steel bike. Both have similar wheels. The steel bike is a little heavier, but not much. Not enough for me to notice it on the road. I ride both at the same speeds. I have as much confidence climbing and descending on either bike. Neither rides better than the other. Both are ridden every week. Though I ride the CF bike a lot more during the winter when it's wet so I don't risk my steel bike rusting (Colnago MasterXLight).

The only real drawback to my CF bike is that it soaks up more road feel than I like, but I'm getting used to it.

The author ignored that there are CF frame builders that do custom geometry just like those many steel builders. Calfee for example. 

The author completely left out Ti, which IMO is a great frame material as well. Especially for those in caustic/salty environments like near the shore or where there is a lot of road salt used during winter. Ti also won't rust.

Sure, CF is more fragile for lateral impacts. But both frame materials can be used to build great bikes. And steel frames break and bend too. Matter of fact, a friend of mine just lost an old Schwinn Paramount. It bent up right underneath him. No crash at all.

I also liked the assertion that an old CF frame will be noodely soft. That hasn't been my experience, and I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that backs me up. A soft frame however will be forever soft as it was never stiff to begin with. Many of the early CF frames were soft as they were built to look like steel bikes and the tubes were too small in diameter. But that doesn't mean there weren't stiff ones, which are still stiff today. 

The article reads to me like the author is rather highly biased toward steel frames.

A cyclist is best served buying a frame that fits properly. Material choice ultimately becomes an "I want" issue rather than anything else. A good frame builder can make any material ride and feel the way you want. Just choose the right frame builder for the material that you've chosen for your bike.


----------



## mud390 (Sep 6, 2006)

I've been wrestling the steel vs. carbon debate for a while now. Shopping for a new bike is fun, but stressful at the same time. Coming off an old aluminum Cannondale, I know I don't want that road, but steel or carbon....hmmmm?!?

Kris


----------



## russotto (Oct 3, 2005)

Poor aluminum gets no respect. No rust either though...


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I quit reading at carbon frames "are stiffer than an I-beam – at least initially"


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

yeah I read the article when I noticed it this morning. frankly it wasn't the highest standard of journalism I've ever seen... and I'm a steel fan.

I do agree with the ideas that:
- carbon is the fashion of the moment
- many riders are on carbon bikes that really would be better served on steel bikes for reasons of long term durability and common design factors (e.g. clearance)
- steel bikes tend to hold up to the rough treatment of life better.

But yeah, it's entirely possible to get great values in a bike made of any of the big 4 materials, custom or production. If the author wants to educate, or even advocate, he should do it while acknowledging that there's a ton of overlap here.


----------



## mondayC (May 22, 2008)

Summarized- "Carbon will esplode if you touch it, steel makes me horny."
And I'm a steel rider.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

The article was very one sided......(and I prefer steel)..

Rarely do these discussion/articles actually talk about design...design is far more important than the frame material..

There are too many people that think that carbon will automatically give you a compliant ride..Conversely, there are a lot that think steel cannot be stiff...

I've ridden frames made out of both materials that will rattle your teeth......


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

I am a steel rider, but will pass on reading that blog post. I ride a lugged steel road bike and a custom steel 29er mountain bike.

To date, the articles written in that official RBR blog have not been very good in content and writing style. At times, the writing and content is outright embarassing like that article on roadie fashion.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

appears the author is a freelance writer specializing in the automotive industry. Maybe that explains why he appears to know so little about frames. Pathetic article.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

Creakyknees said:


> yeah I read the article when I noticed it this morning. frankly it wasn't the highest standard of journalism I've ever seen... and I'm a steel fan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## StillKeen (Oct 4, 2005)

Dave Hickey said:


> design is far more important than the frame material..
> .


You've got it there! Buying some steel framed bike that's just thrown together by a robotic TIG welder in China, or some generic carbon frame that's specified by ticking boxes on an order form from Taiwan Carbon Frames Ltd will yeild most likely yeild junk.

My next road bike might be custom steel (Columbus Spirit excites me) or carbon from a company that do lots of testing and development to actually make a frame that utilises the advantages of carbon (Trek, Specialized, Look, Time, Giant sort of thing).

Given how fashion changes, I would say a nice steel bike will 'age' better than the latest carbon bike (where they change the color and all of a sudden your bike is 'last years').

Current bikes 6 steel, 3 alloy, 0 carbon (can't afford one at the moment).

-StillKeen

ps I didnt bother reading the article


----------



## Le Wrench (May 12, 2009)

The best part of that article is the photo of this bike.

There. I just saved all you 5-7 minutes of your life that you would have wasted and never regained again if you had read that article.

Very juvenille article and outright misinformed. 

The best part of this website are the user post and photos. The so-called "Pro Reviews" and articles by RBR staff are second rate at best.


----------



## michelinman (Apr 5, 2008)

As someone who fits the first three paragraphs (my motorcycle was stolen and insurance gave me $1600 for it, so I am looking to spend ~ $2000 for a cf road bike to replace my 1996 gt mtb fitted with slicks), I am confused as to just how a custom steel bike fits into the same ballpark as something like a $2200 Tarmac elite. Every time I look up some of these custom steel bikes, the frame alone is at least $2000! Am I missing something here?
I have seen bikes like the kona kapu and think that iris a worthy candidate. But purchasing a kapu seems to negate all of the author's strongest points which seem to revolve around having a custom specced bike for your size and needs. Are custom steel bikes (complete with a decent gruppo) really available around the $2000 mark?


----------



## cyclocommuter (Jun 30, 2002)

The article makes some good points. It does make me think that Carbon may have been the best material that ever happened from the Bike manufacturers perspective... A Carbon bike is almost like the latest cell phone, iPod, or iPhone; nice to drool at when new but ultimately meant to be disposable.


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

michelinman said:


> As someone who fits the first three paragraphs (my motorcycle was stolen and insurance gave me $1600 for it, so I am looking to spend ~ $2000 for a cf road bike to replace my 1996 gt mtb fitted with slicks), I am confused as to just how a custom steel bike fits into the same ballpark as something like a $2200 Tarmac elite. Every time I look up some of these custom steel bikes, the frame alone is at least $2000! Am I missing something here?
> I have seen bikes like the kona kapu and think that iris a worthy candidate. But purchasing a kapu seems to negate all of the author's strongest points which seem to revolve around having a custom specced bike for your size and needs. Are custom steel bikes (complete with a decent gruppo) really available around the $2000 mark?


A good custom steel frame can be had for $825 from a reputable builder like Curlto. 
Then there are the boutique brand builders where frames can cost in excess of $2000 like a Hampsten.

So getting into custom steel is within reach if you go with Curtlo. With that said, I have ridden custom and production frames and in the end, I've been just as happy on my production frames like the Kona Kapu. Custom can be good and essential for someone with specific body needs (overly short legs, super long torso, etc). Other than that, off the shelf steel is a great option.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

michelinman said:


> As someone who fits the first three paragraphs (my motorcycle was stolen and insurance gave me $1600 for it, so I am looking to spend ~ $2000 for a cf road bike to replace my 1996 gt mtb fitted with slicks), I am confused as to just how a custom steel bike fits into the same ballpark as something like a $2200 Tarmac elite. Every time I look up some of these custom steel bikes, the frame alone is at least $2000! Am I missing something here?
> I have seen bikes like the kona kapu and think that iris a worthy candidate. But purchasing a kapu seems to negate all of the author's strongest points which seem to revolve around having a custom specced bike for your size and needs. Are custom steel bikes (complete with a decent gruppo) really available around the $2000 mark?


If an off-the-shelf frame has the right geometry for you and is comfy to ride, there's just no need to go with a custom frame to get to the same place.


----------



## stumpy_steve (Nov 5, 2006)

cyclocommuter said:


> A Carbon bike is almost like the latest cell phone, iPod, or iPhone; nice to drool at when new but ultimately meant to be disposable.


Kudos on the good quote...


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

cyclocommuter said:


> The article makes some good points. It does make me think that Carbon may have been the best material that ever happened from the Bike manufacturers perspective... A Carbon bike is almost like the latest cell phone, iPod, or iPhone; nice to drool at when new but ultimately meant to be disposable.


High margin and disposable... carbon is money indeed for the manufacturer.

There was $3500 triathlon frame outed here before with a good website, good messaging. That is until someone outed the exact same frame selling under another brand for $850.

That being said, I have a few carbon and steel frames in the garage always vying for attention. I like them all for different reasons.

fc


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

Le Wrench said:


> The best part of that article is the photo of this bike.
> 
> There. I just saved all you 5-7 minutes of your life that you would have wasted and never regained again if you had read that article.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:I love that frame and fork...:thumbsup:


----------



## Dr. Placebo (May 8, 2007)

This article was disappointing. I was expecting a revelation, not the same soapbox steel worshiping one can find anywhere else. Why was this made into an article?


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

Funny that the three steel builders he mentioned tend to build living history museum bikes, have huge price tags and long waiting lists assuming they are taking orders at all. He would have been much better off citing builders like Strong, Kirk and deSalvo.

While I strongly prefer steel and I doubt I will ever buy anything in any other material, let's face the simple fact that while carbon will certainly explode if you look at it wrong, you can still pretty easily buy two mass produced CF bikes for the cost and the time it would take you to get one custom steel ride. Basic economics, and most consumers respond to just that. "I want to go down to the LBS this weekend and buy a bike" almost certainly excludes a decent steel rig.

And that's not even getting into the basic fact that most people would be scared to death to buy a bike without a spin around the parking lot.


----------



## Henri65 (Nov 24, 2008)

russotto said:


> Poor aluminum gets no respect. No rust either though...


Good point. In his conclusion he says:

_"This is a bike you will be riding every single day (optimistically) and racing a few weekends per month (even more optimistically)."_

Sounds like a race worthy commuter like a CAAD 9.


----------



## Kristatos (Jan 10, 2008)

Agreed that the article could have been better researched perhaps. He cites Steelman being into carbon now, which isn't the case, he did play with carbon for a few years but the way he explained it to me was you had to try something for a while to determine if it was right or not, and after a few years of working with and riding on carbon he decided it wasn't for him. Seems like the author didn't even get many sources other than Bayliss. 

Still, if I were to buy a carbon frame I'd get one of those generic ones. No sense in spending a couple grand on something you can get for a few hundy on ebay.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

Dave Hickey said:


> The article was very one sided......(and I prefer steel)..
> 
> Rarely do these discussion/articles actually talk about design...design is far more important than the frame material..
> 
> ...


You can throw in Ti too. That first generation Litespeed (I forget the model name) built with oversize 6.4 Ti tubes would remove the fillings in your teeth.


----------



## seemann (Jul 23, 2009)

*Steel is so yesterday...*

I rode steel for many years and stuck with it when everybody was into aluminum and ti. For me, the stiffness and (modest) weight savings were never enough to compensate for the huge sacrifice in ride quality with aluminum, even in later generations frames that were shaped and tuned in various ways. As for ti, well, the ridiculous manufacturing costs always left a good ti frame out of my reach. And then, about six years ago, I rode a Giant TCR. It was as light and stiff as the aluminum frames I'd ridden AND had a ride quality that matched and maybe even excelled that of my best Italian steel frames (a Cinelli Super Corsa, then a Colnago Master XL). The only difference was "road feel" which, frankly, is pretty overrated in my view. Unless you have your eyes closed, you can pretty well tell what the pavement quality is like. At that time, Giant was pretty much the only company that was selling carbon frames at a decent price. That has changed. Now, it is true that carbon probably doesn't last as long as steel on average. Indeed, one of my Giants, a 2003 TCR, recently developed a crack. However, as an earlier poster noted, you can pick up two or three good carbon frames for the price of one good steel frame, and that ratio can only go up as the engineering and manufacturing know-how become more widespread. From what I can tell, it costs well under $500 to make a good carbon frame these days. They are pretty much all made by a half dozen or so factories in Taiwan and Shanghai these days. In fact, I ordered one of the "unlabeled" Kuota Kredo knockoffs that were being sold on Ebay until recently for $500. While I was waiting for it to arrive, I used one of my steel bikes for general riding purposes, a custom-made, hand-welded frame made with high-end air-hardening tubes (True Temper OS). I remember how much stiffer it felt than the Colnago when I first got it. Well, compared to my carbon frames, guys, this thing rides like a wet noodle. I was truly shocked by the amount of torsion and flex when I was climbing and sprinting. The difference was noticeable even with seated climbing. I have a soft spot for steel, particularly for the old, chrome-lugged, silver-brazed steeds of yore. They look cool, the way a '57 Chevy or a '63 Corvette looks cool. But we all know that these old-timers could never win a race against a new BMW or Maserati. And I think we all know that the same applies to even the best steel frame.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

seemann said:


> I have a soft spot for steel, particularly for the old, chrome-lugged, silver-brazed steeds of yore. They look cool, the way a '57 Chevy or a '63 Corvette looks cool. But we all know that these old-timers could never win a race against a new BMW or Maserati. *And I think we all know that the same applies to even the best steel frame*.


Horsecrap...ut:


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

*The carbon myth…*

Let me start by saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with carbon as a frame material…it has strengths and weaknesses just like steel, Ti, and aluminum.

I’ve owned 7 carbon LOOKs over the years so I do speak with some degree of experience…

The frustration lies with the myths circulating about carbon being “cure all” for comfort, stiffness, vibration dampening, etc….Buy carbon bars and all your hand numbness will go way….buy a carbon seat post and your butt will thank you… A carbon frame will soak up all the road buzz (I thought Bontragers Harmonic Buzz Killers did that?  ).

While in some cases the above might be true, it is certainly not true of all carbon frames and components…Carbon can be built super stiff and give a very unforgiving ride…for what it’s worth, steel, aluminum and Ti can also be built to give a variety of ride characteristics…

Design is more important in determining a nice handling frame than frame material.

Let me give you an example.

The picture is of a LOOK KG496. While this obviously a time trial frame, according to internet myth, it has all the characteristics of a perfect riding frame.
It has carbon bars, fork, frame, seat post..hell it even has carbon wheels…….I’ve ridden the track version of this frame and I can guarantee you this bike is not forgiving in the least. 

It soaks up no, none, nada road buzz….….It was the stiffest bike I’ve ever ridden…It sure was fast though…..

Proper design far outweighs frame material when it comes to frame characteristics.

I am not advocating buying steel…..carbon can be made into a great bike but so can many other frame materials


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

+1 All in the design and way the material of choice is used. Each of us has a different interpretation how the bike will feel under them. Some characteristics may be similar across riders though there will be subtle differences...one of those may be significant to look elsewhere in frame material/choice.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

seemann said:


> I rode steel for many years and stuck with it when everybody was into aluminum and ti. For me, the stiffness and (modest) weight savings were never enough to compensate for the huge sacrifice in ride quality with aluminum, even in later generations frames that were shaped and tuned in various ways. As for ti, well, the ridiculous manufacturing costs always left a good ti frame out of my reach. And then, about six years ago, I rode a Giant TCR. It was as light and stiff as the aluminum frames I'd ridden AND had a ride quality that matched and maybe even excelled that of my best Italian steel frames (a Cinelli Super Corsa, then a Colnago Master XL). The only difference was "road feel" which, frankly, is pretty overrated in my view. Unless you have your eyes closed, you can pretty well tell what the pavement quality is like. At that time, Giant was pretty much the only company that was selling carbon frames at a decent price. That has changed. Now, it is true that carbon probably doesn't last as long as steel on average. Indeed, one of my Giants, a 2003 TCR, recently developed a crack. However, as an earlier poster noted, you can pick up two or three good carbon frames for the price of one good steel frame, and that ratio can only go up as the engineering and manufacturing know-how become more widespread. From what I can tell, it costs well under $500 to make a good carbon frame these days. They are pretty much all made by a half dozen or so factories in Taiwan and Shanghai these days. In fact, I ordered one of the "unlabeled" Kuota Kredo knockoffs that were being sold on Ebay until recently for $500. While I was waiting for it to arrive, I used one of my steel bikes for general riding purposes, a custom-made, hand-welded frame made with high-end air-hardening tubes (True Temper OS). I remember how much stiffer it felt than the Colnago when I first got it. Well, compared to my carbon frames, guys, this thing rides like a wet noodle. I was truly shocked by the amount of torsion and flex when I was climbing and sprinting. The difference was noticeable even with seated climbing. I have a soft spot for steel, particularly for the old, chrome-lugged, silver-brazed steeds of yore. They look cool, the way a '57 Chevy or a '63 Corvette looks cool. But we all know that these old-timers could never win a race against a new BMW or Maserati. And I think we all know that the same applies to even the best steel frame.


Funny... in 2005 I was bike shopping, after spending 15 years with the legendarily stiff and harsh Cannondale 3.0. The TCR was the only bike I've ever ridden that was more harsh.

Not saying that your perceptions are wrong, as such... Just that perceptions differ, and aren't quantifiable fact. I've had times when I've been switching between wheelsets rapidfire, lost track of which ones I was riding at the time, and thought 'gee, these 32hOP's really are a lot smoother than those deep-section carbon clinchers...' Then looked down to see that I was on the carbons. A lot of what you 'feel' when you ride a bike is based on the expectations you bring into it.


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

kyler2001 said:


> Horsecrap...ut:


+1 I've never liked the ride of Giant's carbon bikes, too harsh and completely dead. There are carbon bikes out there that have made me think for a second, but nothing I've ridden compares to a properly built steel or TI bike.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

As Maria Muldaur once sang, "It ain't the meat, it's the motion."


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

As if some 2 bit writer, who is bent on getting everyone to go back in time, is going to change my mind. 

Carbon is not the latest fad, I remember seeing it in the 1980's...get over it.

The 1980's Kestrel...


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

About a year ago, I got some new blinds for my house. I went from the 1" to the 2" for better looks. The mounts changed, so I had to undo all the screws and mounting brackets. The old screws were very thin. The new screws were a bit thicker. I ran into one problem - the old wood was very hard, and in trying to screw these newer screws into it, the head twisted off. Thankfully, The screw was barely in so I could get the rest out with pliers. I used the old screws without a hitch. The quality of the steel in the old was far, far better than the new.
So what does this have to do with the Steel vs. Carbon debate? You might think it's related to the screws in my story, but it isn't! It's related to the blinds. I like the looks of one style more than the other. Both blinds are just as effective in doing their job, just as both types of frame material are effective at doing their job too. 
Steel has a bad rap for being heavy and slow. Neither of this is true. Maybe slower riders ride steel more than carbon? That sounds reasonable. Cheap steel is heavy, and of poor durability. Good steel is strong and light. Also, good steel most of the time costs less than a high-end CF frame. In my opinion, Carbon is supremely overpriced. This is obviously evidenced by the thousands of $300 frames on Ebay. They just lack the fancy decals and a name on them. 
So, in the end, the decision is simple: Ride what fits your budget, what fits you for a comfortable ride, what has the ride characteristics that you like, and most importantly what you like the looks of!


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Plastic is Fantastic but Steel is Real!

Can't we all just get along.

BTW I agree that the RBR pro reviews seem very amateurish.


----------



## teleguy57 (Apr 23, 2006)

*Ohhh, I wish I hadn't sold my 4000...*

Yup, had one of the early Kestrels pictured below (have no clue how my posting got inserted here vs below the last post:??). Loved the ride (it followed a Trek 2500 that wasn't stiff enough in the bb. SA/TT was just too cramped and need a 15 cm stem. But I loved the solid ride, and yes, quite the looker....


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

MB1 said:


> BTW I agree that the RBR pro reviews seem very amateurish.


So, should we call them RBR Amateur reviews?


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

Peanya said:


> So, should we call them RBR Amateur reviews?


I have actually written to RBR on a couple occasions suggesting that "Staff Reviews" would be a better name than "Pro Reviews".


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

Hooben said:


> As if some 2 bit writer, who is bent on getting everyone to go back in time, is going to change my mind.
> 
> Carbon is not the latest fad, I remember seeing it in the 1980's...get over it.
> 
> The 1980's Kestrel...


I want that Kestrel 4000. 

Yellow Jersey has a brand new old stock one in my size, but I can't justify the purchase given how happy I am with my current ride.

Someone please buy it and put me out of my misery


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

I don't know about this thread, but I enjoyed the video w/ Brian Baylis..


----------



## pgk (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm not impressed with the article to one sided, carbon seems to more widely used today for sure. I own a carbon bike and a old, old Bottecchia lugged steel bike made back in the 70's. I hadn't ridden the Bottecchia in years and just dusted it off last summer and took it for a ride, other than the old campy down tube shifters feeling kind of antiquated I was blown away how the bike handles. Because the Bottecchia was built back in the 70's there is a huge weight difference between it and my Roubaix not to mention steel vs carbon, but when riding it certainly doesn't feel as heavy as it is. A friend of mine just picked up a used Ti frame I can't wait to try it out. To each his own, it's all good...


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

Peanya said:


> So, should we call them RBR Amateur reviews?


Speaking of amateur, the latest "Pro Review" has an embarrassing typo. Yes, the writer misspelled Eddy Merckx on the first page:

_“fiercest warriors of cycling such as Eddy *Merck*, Tom Boonen…”


_


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Indyfan said:


> +1 I've never liked the ride of Giant's carbon bikes, too harsh and completely dead. There are carbon bikes out there that have made me think for a second, but nothing I've ridden compares to a properly built steel or TI bike.


May I suggest that you try the latest TCR Advanced.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

russotto said:


> Poor aluminum gets no respect. No rust either though...


I have 4 bikes, 3 aluminum and 1 steel. By far the harshest is the steel. The heaviest is steel. The second slowest is steel. Keep in mind it's 30 years old, and wasn't great to begin with. It goes to show it's not the material, it's how it's made. Given the choice, CF or steel, I'd probably go with CF.


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

albert owen said:


> May I suggest that you try the latest TCR Advanced.


Well I might try one sometime when one comes through my stand at work. But we'd have to start selling them for me to consider it. Even if I truly fell in love with a Giant and I were ready to spend money on a race geometry frame, I have at least 5 carbon options (only 2 of which I'd consider) 3 TI (one that would be the hands down winner - note my avatar and screen-name), and 4 steel options (insert same statement as the TI here) that I can get EP pricing on. I have ridden quite a few carbon bikes, including the always prestigious Colnago, Pinarello, Calfee (those don't count because they're custom and the owner might have ride requirements different than mine and one was a tandem), so I haven't buried my head in the sand. I just know what I like and the reasons for it. That's what it all really boils down to - we should ride what we really like and not let fashion or other considerations get in the way.

Bob


----------



## vandalbob (Dec 13, 2001)

*yada yada yada*

steel is heavy, it rusts, it is real, it is springy, it's comfy
carbon explodes, is stiff, vertical compliant, smooth yet unforgiving
aluminum is well......aluminum, it's stiff, non-repairable, doesn't rust, is cheap
titanium is best, it's boutique chic, its a has been, it doesn't rus

Does it really matter? No. As long as its Italian, and steel.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

(aluminum is well...... doesn't rust)

No, it turns to dust and blows away!


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Aluminum corrodes. I have the alien sweat to prove it as it grows nice white crystals on my bike.

I have carbon, aluminum, steel, and Ti frames. They all ride nice. Mostly I can't tell the difference but I'm sure some people's derrieres are more sensitive than mine...


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

What a bunch of retro baloney.

I am no materials engineer, but -- folks, help me out here -- the author implies carbon "gets soft" with age. No way. This is just silly wool-jersey superstition, right?

I thought we went through the "which frame material is the be all end all" argument years ago, and found out that they all area, and none of them are.

Carbon is easier to make "all three," light, stiff, and cheap, than other frame materials. But, we've all known that for a while now.

And, yes, 800-gram carbon frames are quite fragile. Um, duh.

For those who say steel can be light, you are quite right -- but go and crash an 853 frame and tell me how your wallet feels after repairing it. I assure you, that top tube is just as easy to crumple as a carbon frame of similar weight is to crack.

In conclusion, so what?

Ride what speaks to you.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

Although CF has been around for a while now, it still seems trendy. Steel (and ti) is not trendy, but classic. There's nothing better (to me) than a modern steel (or ti) frame. They are timeless from the day you buy it. Cf just doesn't seem timeless to me. 
That said, I own both and love both.


----------



## StillKeen (Oct 4, 2005)

A good CF frame on it's own is not normally cheap. The frame builder I've looked at using, will charge $SU1000 for columbus spirit bike. Carbon frames I look at are $US2000+.

A Dura-ace Madone is how much? A DA build kit from pbk and some finishing bits + $US1000 frame ... I think I can beat the Madone for price.

Custom isnt that expensive.


----------



## Eisentraut (Sep 18, 2008)

The really interesting thing about carbon is it's very customizable. It allows one to change tube shape, wall thickness, weight and weight location internal and external structuring etc. You might also be able to say that to a much lesser degree about steel but not to the level of carbon. It's kind of like paint, Is it the paints fault that the picture is ugly? (or not)


----------



## seemann (Jul 23, 2009)

*The horsecrap hits the fan*



kyler2001 said:


> Horsecrap...ut:


Horesecrap, you say? OK, prove it! Give me some examples of competitive riders who have won serious races on steel frames anytime since, say, 2000. Frankly, I doubt you could give me any examples of people who have won a local crit on a steel bike any time in recent memory. Steel's lovely for doing a century or a relaxed group ride, but no one should ride it in a competitive situation...and no serious competitive rider does any more. On that note...I finished building up my new carbon bike and took it out for a spin on the same loop I've been riding my trusty steel bike the last week or so. My average speed increased by 1.5 mph. The difference was especially noticeable in acceleration and climbing as one would expect.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

1.5mph eh? Wow that MUST be due to those explosions in the carbon I keep hearing about propelling you forward.

Ascribing a 1.5mph difference to the frame material is preposterous. I rode my steel, carbon, and Ti bike on a local 70 mile loop this week, and... all the times were within 5 minutes of each other. That small amount of difference is easily explained by things like winds, conditioning, traffic lights, etc. The frame matters a lot less than who's sitting on top of it.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

The photos were nice, but they were the only worthwhile thing in the "article." FWIW, I have a 1991 bonded carbon frame which still works fine despite tens of thousands of km - it is not a wet noodle. I thought all that crap about frames "wearing out" had been put to rest ages ago, with comparative testing in magazines, etc.

Half-truths and blatant propaganda seem to be good at generating comments though, so if the only motivation was to keep people glued to RBR (and looking at the ads) the piece has been successful.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*Blah, don't get sucked in...*

Seems like the idea of the article was to push buttons and get hits by using the oldest controversy in the books. 

'Mission accomplished', sad to say. This article is like Britney Spear's music career... much ado about nothing.
.


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

DrSmile said:


> 1.5mph eh? Wow that MUST be due to those explosions in the carbon I keep hearing about propelling you forward.
> 
> Ascribing a 1.5mph difference to the frame material is preposterous. I rode my steel, carbon, and Ti bike on a local 70 mile loop this week, and... all the times were within 5 minutes of each other. That small amount of difference is easily explained by things like winds, conditioning, traffic lights, etc. The frame matters a lot less than who's sitting on top of it.


I guess another point that should be considered is that it doesn't have to be a performance advantage over another rider who could be stronger than you. It can be a personal advantage. I challenge myself every ride. I want to get faster and stronger each time out on the bike. If I had a frame that was comfortable, light, and gave me a several minute advantage over my other frames, that would be the one that I would ride. Frame/material choice also does not have to be made with only a performance mindset. It can be for aesthetics and personal preference. Each material is different and offers different characteristics. Steel is my current ride and may be for my next bike, but I will not rule out Ti or carbon.


----------



## Eisentraut (Sep 18, 2008)

If you took a carbon frame and a steel frame and dropped them off of a cliff Isaak Newton said they would hit the ground at the same time. The frame by itself isn't faster it's the rider that makes it faster.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

As a road racer, I found the "facts" about carbon to be laughable. What are a couple pounds more? Ask a climber. Reminds me of guys who brag about staying in the big ring the entire time on a hill climb, but are horribly dropped. 

Sure, I wouldn't mind owning many custom steel, Ti, etc, bikes, but I don't think this will grab many carbon users as most of the facts about carbon aren't true. I have trouble putting much credibility into the author's claims about these custom steel frames.


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

Eisentraut said:


> If you took a carbon frame and a steel frame and dropped them off of a cliff Isaak Newton said they would hit the ground at the same time. The frame by itself isn't faster it's the rider that makes it faster.




wha?

lol, completely amazes me this logic.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Eisentraut said:


> If you took a carbon frame and a steel frame and dropped them off of a cliff Isaak Newton said they would hit the ground at the same time. The frame by itself isn't faster it's the rider that makes it faster.


wrong.

You have two possibilites 

1. Given same geometries, the steel one would hit the ground first because it is heavier, due to mass.
2. The carbon one if it is a TT one even if lighter, would hit the ground first because it is more aerodinamic, due to air resistance

If you do the experiment on the vacuum, then both would hit the ground together, no matter mass or geometry.

Physics 101


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

satanas said:


> Half-truths and blatant propaganda seem to be good at generating comments though, so if the only motivation was to keep people glued to RBR (and looking at the ads) the piece has been successful.


I agree.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

This is a like a Ford-Chevy discussion, vinyl records to CD, Mary-Ann or Ginger...? 

Speaking of poor Brittney, maybe we can get him to do a steel vs. CF vid: ut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc (NWS for language)


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Why is it that most carbon bike riders act as smug as hybrid owners? It sounds like a lot of people missed the point. He mentioned the custom steel frame costing what the mass produced carbon frame costs. A custom carbon frame will cost a lot more than a custom steel. You can't compare the two. Carbon costs more to manufacture so of course the bike will cost more. There is no way anyone here can tell me that a Trek Madone 5.5 will be a better bike than a custom steel bike of equal value. Carbon might be a better choice in some cases but I have to agree that the desire comes from the "What the pros ride mentality." Don't deny it. It's true what he was saying even if carbon is that great. One of my rigs is carbon too (Felt F1C) and if I really think about it, the hype sold me too. Sure it rides great but so does a Waterford for a bit less loot. Regardless of whether we want to believe it or not, all the qualities we love in carbon can be founf in any frame material if built right. There are even carbon bikes that ride as harsh as aluminum ones. Still, the fact remains: Steel has stood the test of time. A quality steel frame is just as good (if not better in many instances) as any other.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

My $0.02..

Yes, the article is biased. And yes, many riders that are on carbon either would be better off on a bike that fit them better, and are somewhat ill-informed about their bikes.

I mostly ride steel bikes. My current road bikes are: a 17.25 pound steel-framed bike, and a 17.75 pound aluminum-framed bike. Both ride nicely. I prefer steel to carbon (and to some degree aluminum) because it's easier to repair, it's easier to repaint, and it can be recycled when I'm done with it in 30 years.

When climbing the weight of the bike matters. If you legitimately may win a Cat 1 race, you need to really be concerned about weight. If you want to ride with your buddies up a hill, and possibly have bragging rights to the "win." I don't think a few seconds is really that significant - and a few seconds is the most that you'll see from two pounds of weight drop (wheels excluded).

What I think is funny is how people that own a 19-20 pound carbon bike assume that all steel bikes are heavier than their "carbon wonder bike." The 2 to 5 pound that are a bike frame are only part of a bigger system called "the bike." In the case of my steel-framed bike, I know good and well that I started with a couple of pounds disadvantage over a nice carbon frame. However the money that I saved on my frame went into lighter wheels and lighter components. At just over 17 pounds, it's plenty light. It will never win a hill climb - not because it's heavy, but because I'm not fit enough. I could have paid more for a lighter frame with heavier components, but in the end the bike would still weigh about 17 pounds, and I'd be exactly the same speed up a hill.

The conclusion: People who think that everyone should ride carbon are wrong. People who think that everyone should ride steel are wrong. Cantador would have won the TdF this year even if his bike had been a pound heavier, regardless of the material. Unless you plan on winning races, the weight of your bike is really not that important.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

terbennett said:


> Why is it that most carbon bike riders act as smug as hybrid owners? It sounds like a lot of people missed the point.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

EverydayRide said:


> Next couple years you'll see your "steel custom bike frame pros" offering a carbon frame given time.



Exceedingly unlikely, given exactly how expensive the equipment is for making plastic bikes...as well as the massively different techniques in production and materials.

There are a few specialist artisan CF builders-but I doubt well see artisan metal frame builders go to plastic.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Marc said:


> Exceedingly unlikely, given exactly how expensive the equipment is for making plastic bikes...as well as the massively different techniques in production and materials.
> 
> There are a few specialist artisan CF builders-but I doubt well see artisan metal frame builders go to plastic.


We have a custom frame builder in Connecticut that turned Carbon.


----------



## Eisentraut (Sep 18, 2008)

Salsa_Lover said:


> wrong.
> 
> You have two possibilites
> 
> ...


It was a joke Einstein......

This whole thread is a joke, does it really matter to anyone if this guy rides this frame again? I'll bet no one in this thread except one or two of us have ever built a carbon frame or anything for that matter out of carbon and are talking completely out of that slot in there saddle. 

How many times does this CF/ Steel issue need to be re hashed?


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

Indy fab is taking a stab at carbon. 

The Bianchi Pinella is a 2,000 dollar steel frame and most other makers are about that price. I walked in to my LBS today and a Rubaix SL is 2,000... left over SL2's are getting close to that..

I am shopping for a new bike. I have looked at all materials and the steel bikes I want are more than an excellent carbon frame.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

penn_rider said:


> Indy fab is taking a stab at carbon.


Wood too.


----------



## Indyfan (Mar 30, 2004)

EverydayRide said:


> Wood too.


Actually I believe that's a TI/Carbon XS with a cosmetic cherry veneer. I like the look. They've been building the XS for a few years now with rave reviews. I imagine it has a similar ride to the TI/Carbon Lemonds from a few years back. Those bike rode really nicely but weren't all that well received because the industry had finally sorted out how to do full carbon properly.

Bob


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

IMHO.
i have two high end carbon frames (2004 Madone and 2006 Time Edge). Classic round tubes (or close enough!). and i have a modern custom Ti on order. i would not mind a modern custom steel too one day. I think carbon is too common and frankly rather boring now. and carbon is made to be disposable (as always). if you drop it in an "odd way" be prepared to bin it. and i dont like the silly "aero" shapes they make out of carbon these days - things like pinarello, cervelo, the latest 2008+ Time (RXR etc), etc, and many with ridiculous looking integrated seatposts too. they look like something out of Toys-R-US - weird looking and plastic. Pros will ride whatever the sponsors give them. And regardless of material - i would not ride anything that is "feather-light" because I know it is not built to last. it may be built to win Le Tour but I am not aiming for that. i want something to last a lot longer than 3500km and even longer 35,000km. 

BTW 50yo Jeannie Longo still races on Ti (and still wins). Carbon is not the only choice, thankfully. World would be boring without choices. 

Whatever you like to ride - stay upright.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Where is everyone getting the idea that carbon frames don't last? I've got 3 years and about 8,000 miles on my Bianchi, it has been thrown around in the back of my car for 3 years, and I've even crashed it once in a race. 

On your sub 1kg carbon frames, sure, durability is a bit compromised. Ya might even see guys who don't race these in crits. I know some traveling pros who also avoid these due to air traffic and rough handling in transit, which may be about like crashing in every race. 

As for carbon snobs, that made me laugh. Almost everyone I know races carbon with a few guys using aluminum in crits or relatively flat TTs. I know a few guys who train on cheap alloy bikes from time to time, but as I said earlier, there are no points awarded for using cheaper or heavier bikes.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Indyfan said:


> Actually I believe that's a TI/Carbon XS with a cosmetic cherry veneer. I like the look. They've been building the XS for a few years now with rave reviews.


That is pure sex.:8:


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> Ascribing a 1.5mph difference to the frame material is preposterous.


Sure, but I can easily believe that one frame might offer a 1.5MPH advantage over another- weight (up hill only), general quality (CF frames are often pretty good), fit, etc. 

I went from a fair aluminum frame to a good aluminum frame. I use a GPS on every ride. The speed difference hammering on long straights is about 1-1.5MPH higher on the good frame. I don't ascribe it to frame material. I do ascribe it to the frame.


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*Bla bla bla. . .*



thien said:


> New article by Kurt Gensheimer - Check it out, weigh in with your thoughts in the comments section!


Just another tool spouting off about an ancient build material. Lets just go back to the early 19th century and build frames from pig iron, or go back to wooden tennis rackets. The custom geometry hand doesn't play anymore really, with sloping geometry, a large variety of stem lengths/angles and bars of all sizes even pros generally ride stock.

I'm extremely happy with my full carbon fiber bike and would never consider steel any more than carburetors on cars.:thumbsup:


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

Boys and Girls....

It's simply a FAD.
I started racing in the mid 80's and if you recall (for those of you who has been around), the steel was the real deal, then Cannondale got hot (made with some big tubes). Next, it was the CF fad, I went out and bought a Kestrel road bike and CSX mountain bike (I think Giant Cadex and Trek bonded CF were hot also). Then Ti got hot lead by Merlin and Litespeed. Went out and bought a Merlin. Then Steel got hot again (with some light weight tubing like Nivocrom, I think). Iwent out boought a Serotta Colorado 2 and Marinonni. Then AL got hot agan, I bought a Fondriest Decaccia tubing. Then Ti got hot again. Went out bought a Serotta Legend. Now CF is in demand.

What do I own?
Steel - Marinnoni and Serotta Colorado 2 (my brother have them)
AL - Klein Quntum and Gant TCR 
CF - Time VXR Proeam and RXR Ulteam
Ti - 2 Legend Ti.

I have to guess next one to get hot will be either AL or Steel.

It will continues to go around circle just like the earth.....


----------



## simplyhankk (Jan 30, 2008)

cpark said:


> Boys and Girls....
> 
> It's simply a FAD.
> I started racing in the mid 80's and if you recall (for those of you who has been around), the steel was the real deal, then Cannondale got hot (made with some big tubes). Next, it was the CF fad, I went out and bought a Kestrel road bike and CSX mountain bike (I think Giant Cadex and Trek bonded CF were hot also). Then Ti got hot lead by Merlin and Litespeed. Went out and bought a Merlin. Then Steel got hot again (with some light weight tubing like Nivocrom, I think). Iwent out boought a Serotta Colorado 2 and Marinonni. Then AL got hot agan, I bought a Fondriest Decaccia tubing. Then Ti got hot again. Went out bought a Serotta Legend. Now CF is in demand.
> ...


Sounds like a journey. Presumably enjoyable. 

Carbon vs steel vs aluminum...etc etc...the selected frame materials exist for their own reasons (weight, durability, etc) and if treated well they'll serve you right...I own 2 cf bikes, but after reading this article I might just get myself a steel rig just to see....and I'll find myself following cpark's footsteps (wasn't around long enough to tool in the 80's  )


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Marc said:


> Exceedingly unlikely, given exactly how expensive the equipment is for making plastic bikes...as well as the massively different techniques in production and materials.
> 
> There are a few specialist artisan CF builders-but I doubt well see artisan metal frame builders go to plastic.


+1. 

A quality built steel frame is a work of art. Just look at the meticulous detail that goes into building one. Carbon can be done in an artful way (overall design wise) but when it comes to design and detail, steel has it beat.


----------



## daveloving (Jan 5, 2009)

It's fun to try them all. I have an Al singlespeed, steel fixie, steel 10 sp and a carbon 10 speed. All of them are great bikes. I need to do a century on the carbon pedal force RS2, and will soon. I have done centuries on the steel fixie, as a geared bike; and on the Cannondale single speed, when it had gears, and on the compact pro Gios. If I could buy another bike, I'd probably but a Ti Moots - but the budget for new bikes went the way of the economy - south! The way they're built is what matters - that and the tires - and I am a steel is real guy, too.


----------



## steelbikerider (Feb 7, 2005)

Guess what I ride? 

I would love to have a carbon wonder bike and am due to get another bike in the next year or 2 and don't know what to do. I no longer race. It is flat as can be in SE texas. My 19 lb. steel bike is fine since I am 15 lbs over a decent race weight. My bikes usually last over 5 years and my current ride is almost 10 but does have DA 7800.

My questions: 
Will they bike still look good in 5-10 years and will I still want to ride it? 

Would I rather pay 2000+ for a top level frame to a large corporation than pay a similar amount to friend who will build a custom bike just for me? 

What will it cost to repair a damaged bike?

Can the bike be updateded or will the bike have unique parts that will be obsolete in 5 years? 

Should I get a no name internet carbon frame and just replace it every 2 years or so? 

Should I look at Ti(Lynskey)?


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

steelbikerider said:


> My questions:


Stick to a custom builder in steel.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

get one of each material...

had an aluminum, but won't go that route again. now I've got a carbon and a Ti and am shopping for a steel.

you don't eat chicken at every meal do you? a little variety is nice.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

steelbikerider said:


> Guess what I ride?
> 
> I would love to have a carbon wonder bike and am due to get another bike in the next year or 2 and don't know what to do. I no longer race. It is flat as can be in SE texas. My 19 lb. steel bike is fine since I am 15 lbs over a decent race weight. My bikes usually last over 5 years and my current ride is almost 10 but does have DA 7800.
> 
> ...


Get what you want, but pancake flat does not require a lot of weight consideration. Weight comes into it when you're going up hills. Really flat, which means relatively high speeds, means you should consider aerodynamics if you're looking for that last tenth of a MPH of speed. But if you're not racing, does it matter? I'm thinking you might want to ride some of the gee whiz CF frames and see if you love them. You can adjust them almost infinitely- saddle height, saddle position, bar height, bar position, etc. (assuming you get the right size to start with), but I've got to say a custom built steel in your situation is mighty attractive.


----------



## crumjack (Sep 11, 2005)

I'm waiting for someone to start building with Reardon Metal...


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

Le Wrench said:


>


Do we have any idea what these retail for by any chance??!


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Tinea Pedis said:


> Do we have any idea what these retail for by any chance??!


Form Cycles.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

If they had the prices listed do you think I would have asked?


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Tinea Pedis said:


> If they had the prices listed do you think I would have asked?


Sorry; just trying to help.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)




----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

Hold on, where did my post go??


And Everyday, that's baloney ut:


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Tinea Pedis said:


> Hold on, where did my post go??
> 
> 
> And Everyday, that's baloney ut:


Well? Anyone can drop 10 g's on a bike right?

I'd like to see one person walk into a custom frame bike name steel manufacturer and still have their pant on when they leave after seeing the bill. At least with a Tomac Sprint you can resell it for 50% the initial cost after 5 months use. Try that with a 59.3 cm seat tube, 57.2 cm top tube and "insert exotic metal" in the next phase for sale.

My humour


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

EverydayRide said:


> Well? Anyone can drop 10 g's on a bike right?
> 
> I'd like to see one person walk into a custom frame bike name steel manufacturer and still have their pant on when they leave after seeing the bill. At least with a Tomac Sprint you can resell it for 50% the initial cost after 5 months use. Try that with a 59.3 cm seat tube, 57.2 cm top tube and "insert exotic metal" in the next phase for sale.
> 
> My humour


Grasshopper-you can get a custom steel bike frame for a good deal less than most mid-level floor bikes at the LBS, and close to entry level bikes from names like Trek. Depending on exactly what you want. And if you shop around-you can get custom complete bikes that are comparable in price and components to floor off-the-peg plastic bikes.

Custom does not equal outrageously expensive. Stop spreading distortion. Besides-MOST folks going in for custom know what they want in a bike, and what a bike for *them* and are not worried about resale anyway.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

........

Why didn't you just say that's how you felt rather than making a totally different point...?

And custom can be had for less than 10K.

And the whole idea of custom is really to have a big for a long time - making resale value a bit redundant...


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Tinea Pedis said:


> ........
> 
> Why didn't you just say that's how you felt rather than making a totally different point...?
> 
> ...


It was my recapp on the entire thread and "my humour" as stated. 

Your comment on, "If they had the prices listed do you think I would have asked?" was a typical pitch heard here on 47th street Manhattan. And the Jeweler will always say, "If you have to ask, it's too expensive..."

So excuse me for disrupting the flow of thought here. I just imposed your post on asking the pricing on the FORM steel custom frame as being funny. 
__________________________


Marc said:


> Grasshopper-you can get a custom steel bike frame for a good deal less than most mid-level floor bikes at the LBS, and close to entry level bikes from names like Trek. Depending on exactly what you want. And if you shop around-you can get custom complete bikes that are comparable in price and components to floor off-the-peg plastic bikes.
> 
> Custom does not equal outrageously expensive. Stop spreading distortion. Besides-MOST folks going in for custom know what they want in a bike, and what a bike for *them* and are not worried about resale anyway.




Marc,

You're totally correct by the way.:thumbsup:


----------



## DY123 (Oct 5, 2006)

I second the Form. It looks great. They were at the San Diego Show this year with that bike. Very nice people.


----------



## penn_rider (Jul 11, 2009)

Marc said:


> Grasshopper-you can get a custom steel bike frame for a good deal less than most mid-level floor bikes at the LBS, and close to entry level bikes from names like Trek. Depending on exactly what you want. And if you shop around-you can get custom complete bikes that are comparable in price and components to floor off-the-peg plastic bikes.
> 
> Custom does not equal outrageously expensive. Stop spreading distortion. Besides-MOST folks going in for custom know what they want in a bike, and what a bike for *them* and are not worried about resale anyway.


A majority of custom steel has a wait or is expensive. What is a good deal less to you? Mid level floor bikes? Would that be complete bike for 2-4K, 3-5K? You pick, but I seriously doubt that a custom steel would be a good deal less expensive. I love steel, it is all (except for one bike) I have ever ridden until today. I priced off the shelf and custom steel, and I bought a mid/top 09 carbon frame-set cheaper than an off the shelf steel frame from my LBS. 
There are a lot of builders and I am sure you could find a great deal, but if you want a mid or top level steel bike you will have to shell out the money. Most were above 2 K for the frame and a long wait,, less if you want standard geo.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


> It was my recapp on the entire thread and "my humour" as stated.
> 
> Your comment on, "If they had the prices listed do you think I would have asked?" was a typical pitch heard here on 47th street Manhattan. And the Jeweler will always say, "If you have to ask, it's too expensive..."
> 
> So excuse me for disrupting the flow of thought here. I just imposed your post on asking the pricing on the FORM steel custom frame as being funny.


Ahhh...understood :thumbsup:


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

allow me to make an analogy. people still buy very expensive swiss-made automatic wind-up watches like rolex, tag, jaeger le coultre, patek-philipe, iwc, baume-mercier, etc. why? those watches are very expensive and at the same time they are not as precise as cheap quartz japanese watches made in a factory, like seiko, citizen etc. besides each cell phone has a watch so you dont really need one these days. high quality custom steel and custom titanium is a bit like those expensive handcrafted low volume last-a-lifetime swiss wind-up watches. it is not all about low weight and stiffness. there is also custom fit and lasting quality and individuality. enjoy your ride, whatever you ride.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Can I offer an economic explanation as to why carbon fiber frames are all the rage?

Because, at the end of the day, they have a higher profit margin.

the difference between what it costs to make a carbon frame and what you can sell it for is astronomical.

the difference between what it costs to make a ti frame and what you can sell it for are not so great. Same with steel. At the end of the day, probably the same with aluminum.

A carbon frame is simply more profitable for your favorite bike company. So they make carbon, they market the crap out of it and we buy it because we buy the marketing hype. Nothing wrong with that, it's they way things go. 

It's the same as 1 1/8 steerers and threadless headsets. THey aren't necessarily better than 1" or threaded, they're just easier to make (stock one size for MTN and road), easier to install and thus more profitable. Same with external bearing cranks- it's a whole hell of a lot easier to drill a hole in a piece of metal than it is to cut a perfect square taper for a bottom bracket. It's also a lot easier to install. A chimp can install an external bearing bb and crank. 

If lugged steel suddenly became incredibly easy to assemble and the profit margin for a steel frame was higher than carbon (we can make them for 30 bucks and sell them for 3,000!), you can bet that the next year, the pro teams would be riding lugged steel again. Not because they are better bikes (they aren't) but because pro teams are just another marketing arm for your favorite bike manufacturer. 

And you can bet the marketing hype would be all about "planing" and the awesome ride of steel and how a good steel frame actually puts more energy back into your pedal stroke. (all stuff I've heard over the years.)

Carbon, steel, aluminum, ti, at the pro level, it's all the same. I like steel. You like carbon. So what. Big deal. We both bought a different line of marketing.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Tinea Pedis said:


> ........
> 
> Why didn't you just say that's how you felt rather than making a totally different point...?
> 
> ...


redundant? You might want to look up the meaning.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> redundant? You might want to look up the meaning.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redundant

1. Exceeding what is necessary or natural; superfluous.

was the specific context I was using it in.



Thank you and goodnight.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

*Steeliers Cry for Local Revenues*



buck-50 said:


> Carbon, steel, aluminum, ti, at the pro level, it's all the same. I like steel. You like carbon. So what. Big deal. We both bought a different line of marketing.


These past couple seasons seeing the Pros add weight to their carbon build to maintain 6,8 kilogram of legal road racing weight is pretty funny. Adding weight to the seat posts... LOL.

And the bikes, even with the added weight to the seat posts [read:sub 6,8 kilograms] still out perform anything on the market. Try that with a steelie.... 

Mass majority of riders out there are not riding 6% body fat, resting pulses at a dip below 40 and VO2 uptakes at 93 milliliters. Maybe it's a fad, the "carbon." I don't see F1 going back to steel or aluminum, nor do I see the Air Force. But... better is not always best and when you get down to brass tacks you're just "starting" to see the future of Carbon.

I love my FSA crank arms by the way.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> redundant? You might want to look up the meaning.


I understood it ...can I offer you Blue CheeseHead any assistance?


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

What I wouldn't give to see a rider (Wiggins would have the balls to try it) on a steel bike for a race or two next season.

Would never happen...but if you had no chance in the race anyway imagine the hype and publicity you would generate for your team and sponsor that would otherwise never exist.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Tinea Pedis said:


> What I wouldn't give to see a rider (Wiggins would have the balls to try it) on a steel bike for a race or two next season.
> 
> Would never happen...but if you had no chance in the race anyway imagine the hype and publicity you would generate for your team and sponsor that would otherwise never exist.


This is absolute truth. Myself, dealing with PROFICA in france for several years and seeing other "steel/aluminum" manufacturers out there fade away ...I have a super soft spot for alloyed steels. buck-50 said it best, but it's still sad. The focus of the market is really "on" carbon and "on carbon" everywhere. It dictates the mood, the research and the fundamentals of scientific "focus." LOL

I bet there could be super-lite steel alloyed components and frames made with superior quality then carbon found "today." But...remember what I said, if the focus is "carbon" then the mad scientists will work night and day to "justify" the cause. Carbon will develop leaps and bounds every year. 

As you and buck-50 said, it's the "market focus."

cool.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

EverydayRide said:


> These past couple seasons seeing the Pros add weight to their carbon build to maintain 6,8 kilogram of legal road racing weight is pretty funny. Adding weight to the seat posts... LOL.
> 
> And the bikes, even with the added weight to the seat posts [read:sub 6,8 kilograms] still out perform anything on the market. Try that with a steelie....
> 
> ...


Nothing wrong with carbon, don't get all defensive.

But look- Bicycle companies are in this business for one reason- to make a profit. THey aren't going to sell a product that costs them money out of the goodness of their hearts or because they care about your performance. THey're going to sell the most profitable bike they can. And right now, at this moment in time, that means carbon. If you feel faster on it, great, then they've done their job and you are going to help them sell the next guy one of their bikes. 

Again, nothing wrong with that. That's the way stuff gets sold. We tell ourselves that they've got a lab full of speed freaks and racers (and they do) but the people in charge are the bean-counters who say "we can have this frame produced for 20% LESS than our old frame but sell it for 50% more." That's business. 

If next year, steel (0r aluminum or ti or concrete or freaking polyethylene) became more cost-effective, you'd start seeing it phased in as the next wonder material.

And the marketing hype machine would start all over again, and you'd doubt it at first (we all do. Marketers want you to. It makes the hook sink deeper) but next thing you know, you'll be joining the "I never thought I'd buy one of these" chorus. 

Carbon is an awesome material. It's being sold because it's got a really high profit margin. THat's the awesomeness that your favorite bike company cares most about.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

buck-50 said:


> Nothing wrong with carbon, don't get all defensive.


Actually I was totally agreeing with you. 

Sarcasm!


----------



## joey1 (Jan 2, 2007)

You must be joking... I'm sure the entire aero-space industry is using carbon not because of it's strength and weight savings but because it's cheap? Please...


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

*The elephant in the room...*

Here's my $.02 on the subject.

The real reason you should be riding steel not carbon is the _failure mode_ of carbon (flameproof suit going on).

Carbon fiber as a bicycle frame material has some admirable qualities, including terrific strength to weight ratio, the ability to be molded to provide finely tuned ride characteristics by changing the thickness of the lay-up and/or the direction of the fibers in the composite matrix in any area of the frame, and it can be designed to dampen vibration or to transmit it unattenuated. In aerospace applications, CF structures really shine because the material doesn't fatigue like aluminum (aluminum fuselages of pressurized airplanes expand and contract with each flight to altitude and descent to landing, and over time the stresses of these pressurization/depressurization cycles eventually cause fatigue related failure, so pressurized aluminum airframes are life-limited and retired from service after a specified number of cycles). Also, CF structures in aerospace applications aren't ordinarily subjected to impacts severe enough to cause the material to fail. These characteristics are all goodness.

The problem with carbon fiber when used in bicycle frame applications is the failure mode, especially when subjected to impact forces beyond the ultimate loads for which the structure was designed. CFRP has very low elongation and is ductility challenged; it doesn't permanently bend like metals do, and when bent beyond the limits of its elasticity will fail suddenly and often spectacularly. Simply put, failure of CF composite structures is far more likely to be sudden and catastrophic than steel or titanium in the same application subjected to the same impact and/or loading stresses just because of the nature of the material. Good design won’t negate this basic inherent Achilles heel, although the problem can be mitigated by building in a huge safety margin. But that comes at the expense of additional material which means more weight, essentially negating any weight advantage. Also, damage to carbon fiber structures is much more likely to be hidden from visual inspection within the carbon fiber/epoxy resin matrix than damage to steel, aluminum, or titanium which almost always shows up as surface stress cracks before failing.

Steel will almost always make for a slightly heavier frame than CF, titanium, or aluminum because as a material it is density challenged, but with newer steel alloys offering thinner walled OS tubes without compromising strength or stiffness, the weight penalty in a similarly sized frame can often be less than a pound.

We're basically talking risk/benefit analysis here; does the benefit of a slightly lighter frameset outweigh (pardon the pun) the higher risk of injury or death resulting from sudden catastrophic failure? For me, it doesn't.

Just MHO.


----------



## russotto (Oct 3, 2005)

Scooper said:


> The problem with carbon fiber when used in bicycle frame applications is the failure mode, especially when subjected to impact forces beyond the ultimate loads for which the structure was designed.


You could have just said "Carbon explodes".


----------



## Eisentraut (Sep 18, 2008)

So the question is, why build a bike that is sub 15 lbs? As far as I know frames lighter than that aren't legal to race. True if you take any material to it's extreem you risk failure even with thin walled steel. If you can customize a tube to maximize stiffness, aero, vibration dampening etc, doesn't that make for a better building material assuming the same weight compared to steel or aluminum?


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

russotto said:


> You could have just said "Carbon explodes".


I could have, but I think that word is so overused in describing CF failure that I was puposely trying to avoid using it.



Eisentraut said:


> So the question is, why build a bike that is sub 15 lbs? As far as I know frames lighter than that aren't legal to race. True if you take any material to it's extreem you risk failure even with thin walled steel. If you can customize a tube to maximize stiffness, aero, vibration dampening etc, doesn't that make for a better building material assuming the same weight compared to steel or aluminum?


I don't think so if for no other reason than the manner in which CF fails; steel and aluminum will usually show signs of failure (surface cracks) before the event, and both will bend before failing. Carbon is much more likely to fail catastrophically without warning.


----------



## kef3844 (May 30, 2008)

I've hit the deck with my carbon bike this season and it is fine. (campy levers another story), the carbon bodies on those are very fragile, period! It is a 15 lb bike, and I don't think twice bout racin it. Crash was not "into" anything though but more of the washout variety. 
As with anything it depends, I'm sure if I t-boned something at 35 mph my bike might look like that Giant or Pinnarelo.


----------



## Eisentraut (Sep 18, 2008)

I understand the concern about the way CF fails but if you were able to keep the weight of a bike at 15 lbs, that would mean a more stout wall thickness and perhaps mitigate the issues of catistrophic failure. Right now the holy grail seems to be weight and we are seeing complete bikes in the ~13lb range which to my way of thinking is "we've already hit the target now stop shooting" and keep in mind, I'm talking about mass production, legal racing road bikes. The "ultimate weight weenie" is a whole other game that I don't think production bike companies should be playing (imho) and frankly risk of catistrophic failure should be understood in that game.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Scooper said:


> Here's my $.02 on the subject.
> 
> The real reason you should be riding steel not carbon is the _failure mode_ of carbon (flameproof suit going on).
> 
> ...



Well said, and good points, but the 'carbon fiber is GOD!' crowd will no doubt flame you out of existence for it. Or paint you as some sort of neo-luddite or retro-grouch.

That part of the debate is as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.
.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Well said, and good points, but the 'carbon fiber is GOD!' crowd will no doubt flame you out of existence for it. Or paint you as some sort of neo-luddite or retro-grouch.
> 
> That part of the debate is as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.
> .


Not really, but it would be nice to read how each of those frames "exploded" before thinking that a CF frame, "just explodes for no reason unexpectedly" killing, maiming or disfiguring it's rider.:thumbsup:


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

I too would be interested in the story behind those bikes...


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

EverydayRide said:


> Not really, but it would be nice to read how each of those frames "exploded" before thinking that a CF frame, "just explodes for no reason unexpectedly" killing, maiming or disfiguring it's rider.:thumbsup:





Tinea Pedis said:


> I too would be interested in the story behind those bikes...


Here’s the story on the Pinarello Prince:
https://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=158543

Here’s the story on the Scott CR1 Team:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=320405

Here’s the story on the Giant TCR
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=451756

Here's the pothole that broke the Giant TCR. It's 1.5 inches deep.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

For the rider, the benefit of a carbon frame is not that it's lighter or cheaper to manufacture. The true advantage is that a composite carbon frame can be engineered in ways that steel, aluminum or titanium can never match with the end result being a more efficient application of power in combination with a much more comfortable ride. Carbon just makes an all around better bike performance-wise. Very few experienced racers will dispute this fact.

As for me, I've owned many steel and aluminum frames (sorry, no titanium). I've raced at the national level on and off road, and I've toured. My last three race frames have been carbon, and I would NEVER go back to steel or aluminum for a race frame. To be honest, my current (highly regarded) steel framed touring bike is much less comfortable than my carbon race bike. If I could find a carbon frame for touring I'd probably ditch the steel for touring as well.

As for the potential for catastrophic failure in a carbon frame: Any design in any material if improperly engineered or subjected to unintended use can fail. Running any carbon framed bike into a curb at 40 mph is not the use for which it was intended and it's no surprise that it will fail. So would steel, aluminum or titanium, and a broken metal tube will penetrate flesh just as well as a broken carbon tube. OTOH, hitting a pot hole at speed should be within the range of intended use, and if the frame fails, then I'd suspect poor design or a flaw in manufacture. Just because the material is carbon does not mean the material itself is the source of the failure.

Your mileage may vary, but then again, some people still think 8-tracks are better than CDs


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

StillRiding said:


> As for the potential for catastrophic failure in a carbon frame: Any design in any material if improperly engineered or subjected to unintended use can fail. Running any carbon framed bike into a curb at 40 mph is not the use for which it was intended and it's no surprise that it will fail. So would steel, aluminum or titanium, and a broken metal tube will penetrate flesh just as well as a broken carbon tube. OTOH, hitting a pot hole at speed should be within the range of intended use, and if the frame fails, then I'd suspect poor design or a flaw in manufacture. Just because the material is carbon does not mean the material itself is the source of the failure.
> 
> Your mileage may vary, but then again, some people still think 8-tracks are better than CDs


OK, I'll try again.

I said that the nature of CF composite structures makes them far more likely to fail suddenly and catastrophically than steel or titanium in the same application subjected to the same impact and/or loading stresses.

By definition, ductility is the ability of a material to plastically deform without breaking or fracturing, and elongation is a measurable physical property that quantifies ductility.

Here are the elongation percentages for materials used to make bicycle frames. The ductility of the material varies directly with elongation.

Steel - 4130 Chromium-molybdenum is 25%
Steel - Reynolds 531 Manganese-molybdenum is 15%
Titanium - 3/2.5 is 15%
Steel - Reynolds 953 is 14%
Aluminum - 7005 is 12%
CFRP - as used in bicycle frames is typically 1% to 2%

Others may decide for themselves whether they want to compromise their safety for a marginal performance improvement.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Scooper said:


> CFRP - as used in bicycle frames is typically 1% to 2% ,kN
> Others may decide for themselves whether tdeeo3hey want to compromise their safety for a marginal performance improvement.


Dunno, I'm reading this information here on lay up.



IBIS said:


> *The Weak Link - Elongation*
> 
> Now for the bad news: carbon's weak link is elongation. Elongation is your safety net, but with carbon it's low, low, low. Depending on lay-up, it's possible to get some elongation out of carbon. For example, there is a scissoring of layers in the 45-degree plies, but in general we're dealing with a material that doesn't have an overabundance of ductility. Composite designs are not meant to permanently bend. And when they fail, they fail all at once, so designers build in a big safety net. This is similar to what the aluminum designers do, in order to overcome the low elongation of that material.Most manufacturers are very secretive about their lay-ups, so getting good info isn't always easy. Reading through the Trek technical manual yields numbers for the specific modulus of that company's lay-up, which measures the modulus divided by the density. Backing these numbers out yields an 8 MSI modulus for the Trek OCLV lay-up.
> 
> ...


'


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

EverydayRide said:


> Dunno, I'm reading this information here on lay up.
> 
> '


Right; no argument from me. We're talking apples and oranges, I think.

Scot is basically saying the strength of the layup mitigates the low elongation, and I also made that point. The extra strength does not, however, change the fact that because of the low elongation and lack of ductility, when the structure fails, it does so suddenly and catastrophically. That's just the nature of the material.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Scooper said:


> Right; no argument from me. We're talking apples and oranges, I think.
> 
> Scot is basically saying the strength of the layup mitigates the low elongation, and I also made that point. The extra strength does not, however, change the fact that because of the low elongation and lack of ductility, when the structure fails, it does so suddenly and catastrophically. That's just the nature of the material.


I'm following you, but it's like watching FOX NEWS and a Beer Summit. Basically the carbon fiber debate is over "bending" and "twisting" and "exploding."

I don't understand how professionals can ride these frames over the most incredible conditions without LIVE COVERAGE of frames exploding over the road sides [re: 1.5 inch pot hole disaster slow motion]. I've seen crashes where these guys get up and ride away without exchanging new bikes.

We're focusing on something that touches how many on over all failures? Bike shops that I've spoken to say the carbon fiber tube "explosion rate" seems vague or there would be a multi-level class action suit USA wide? Is it possible we've suddenly discovered a word called *elongation*. Like "global warming?"

As for me, I have been riding seriously since the late 70's. I've been the band wagon with Steel. I have never been so comfortable on a frame in my life other then carbon. The bike handles so well, reacting like a jet as light as a feather. Almost 7,000 rough miles here ...rough roads, rough construction projects rural wide, road ways in sprayed tar and stone, pot holes and ruts ...and my bike, in my mind becdause ... well it....

is gunna explode.


explode man, explode because of elongation.

Explode.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

EverydayRide said:


> I'm following you, but it's like watching FOX NEWS and a Beer Summit. Basically the carbon fiber debate is over "bending" and "twisting" and "exploding."
> 
> I don't understand how professionals can ride these frames over the most incredible conditions without LIVE COVERAGE of frames exploding over the road sides [re: 1.5 inch pot hole disaster slow motion]. I've seen crashes where these guys get up and ride away without exchanging new bikes.
> 
> ...


Most of those guys only weigh 130-140 lbs, and with a few notable exceptions-they race over some of the best maintained roads around...and all of them probably never ride any 1 bike frame for more than a few months.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Marc said:


> Most of those guys only weigh 130-140 lbs, and with a few notable exceptions-they race over some of the best maintained roads around...and all of them probably never ride any 1 bike frame for more than a few months.


Okay, so most of the professional riders and top amateurs are between 130-140 lbs [59 -65 kilograms]. And the roads are close to velvet for the most part.

Okay.

This explains a lot. So the average cyclist in the usa who is recreational is also 130-140 lbs and rides on velvet roads too because we're not reading about thousands of carbon fiber frame riders with breakage.

And since I'm 80 kilograms and ride on rough terrain ...

My bike is gunna *EXPLODE*.

Okay.

At least now I'm prepared.:thumbsup:


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Scooper said:


> OK, I'll try again.
> 
> I said that the nature of CF composite structures makes them far more likely to fail suddenly and catastrophically than steel or titanium in the same application subjected to the same impact and/or loading stresses.
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to try again, but...... How much a material deforms after yielding and before it breaks is of little consequence because a bike frame should be designed and manufactured to NOT get to the point of yielding under all intended use. Once any frame suffers stress that causes plastic deformation, be it carbon, steel, aluminum or titanium, you are screwed. At that point, it's just a question of how much further you run into the curb before your steel frame comes apart, just like carbon.

Now, if you'd like to make the point that you'd prefer to be picking steel tubes out of your butt rather than carbon splinters, I might agree with you.

Thanks for letting us all decide what frame we want to compromise our safety with.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Attempt number three. If I fail this time, I'm out.  

The point is, steel _bends_ rather than _breaking_ into splinters, but you're much more likely to still have a rideable frame under your butt.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Scooper said:


> Attempt number three. If I fail this time, I'm out.
> 
> The point is, steel _bends_ rather than _breaking_ into splinters, but you're much more likely to still have a rideable frame under your butt.


Okay.  

Here I can agree with you. But unlike the smoke and mirrors of the 1.5 inch pot hole and a carbon bike totally letting go it'll take much, much more.

I purposely hit every pot hole today to give it a whirl. Tomorrow I will post picks of everything I hit daily.

"Look mommy, no front teeth.":cryin:


----------



## rdalcanto (Mar 2, 2008)

The Cervelo R3 in this independant test was stiffer than the steel and aluminum bikes.
http://www.cervelo.com/reviews/Flexing Their Muscles.pdf

Carbon keeps getting stronger and lighter. You can add things like kevlar. Geometry matters too.
The isotruss carbon/kevlar structure used on the Delta 7 is seven times stronger than steel of equal weight.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Scooper said:


> OK, I'll try again.
> 
> I said that the nature of CF composite structures makes them far more likely to fail suddenly and catastrophically than steel or titanium in the same application subjected to the same impact and/or loading stresses.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems odd that the first thing manufacturers changed from 'safe' steel and aluminum to 'unsafe' CF was the fork, possibly the most failure critical component on a bike, and the 'sharp end of the spear' that gets the shock first. Maybe their engineers are unaware of the issues, or have decided that they can make safe components despite them. I don't have any CF frame bikes, but two of them have CF forks, and I feel quite safe riding them. Maybe I'm just deluding myself, though.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

rdalcanto said:


> The Cervelo R3 in this independant test was stiffer than the steel and aluminum bikes.
> https://www.cervelo.com/reviews/Flexing Their Muscles.pdf
> 
> Carbon keeps getting stronger and lighter. You can add things like kevlar. Geometry matters too.
> The isotruss carbon/kevlar structure used on the Delta 7 is seven times stronger than steel of equal weight.


Cervelo R3 you say?










From https://www.bustedcarbon.com/. Lots of busted forks there, too.


----------



## AndrewClarke (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm going to make the potential mistake of joining in the fray here. I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I do have a degree in Civil Engineering so I've taken my share of materials science courses.

Scooper is not saying OMG CARBON ASPLODE! He is saying that carbon, by nature, has a different failure mode than aluminium or steel.

For instance, we all know that you can make an aluminium bike that is heavier than a steel bike, or a steel bike that is stiffer than an aluminium one. This is even though aluminium is stiffer than steel by weight, and lighter than steel by volume. It stands to reason therefore that you can also make a carbon bike that is stronger than an aluminium or steel bike and is very unlikely to explode.

The carbon layup will also make a difference in how the carbon reacts. A well-designed carbon bike will conceivably start to crack before it fails catastrophically. However, I would argue that you will be more likely to see a stress fracture in a steel or aluminium bike that you will in a carbon bike.

I've broken my share of steel and aluminium road and mountain bike frames. I've never had one fail on me catastrophically, thank God. I've always noticed that the stiffness of the frame was compromised, and then gone over the frame visually and found the crack. In carbon, it's possible that the material inside may be cracking but you might not be able to visually see this. I'm just talking out of my posterior here, theorizing what could happen. I've never (yet) owned a carbon frame.

The point is that you can make all sorts of materials do pretty much what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that, by its very nature, carbon is more likely to break than bend, when compared with steel or aluminium.


----------



## dismal (Jul 28, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


> I don't understand how professionals can ride these frames over the most incredible conditions without LIVE COVERAGE of frames exploding over the road sides [re: 1.5 inch pot hole disaster slow motion]. I've seen crashes where these guys get up and ride away without exchanging new bikes.


From the blog that was mentioned above:
http://www.bustedcarbon.com/2009/07/ster-elektrotoer.html


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

The failure mode of a composite structure depends on the design of the structure, the materials used, and the method of construction. In a past life I owned a company that designed and fabricated composite aircraft components so I do have a little experience in this area. A composite structure can be designed to have a failure mode like crystal or one like a mesh basket....it all depends. 

My point being that it's not the carbon that's the problem with broken carbon frames. What is the problem is either use outside of design parameters (curb crashing), poor design, or improper fabrication. If the failure mode of a carbon frame is truly a serious problem, it wouldn't be much of a challenge to change that mode, and lawyers today would make darned sure that bike manufacturers made those changes (think lawyer-tabs).


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Short of a crash with a car type incident...........

Isn't the real issue here...when comparing the properties of materials........the ability to detect a problem with your frame, before it fails? I've always used bike cleaning process to visually inspect my frame for potential problems.........with materials other than carbon, that process is pretty easy....with carbon, I (and maybe I'm the only one) can only identify impact points (if any), but I can't tell of imminent failure. I read about overtightened stem faceplates causing catastophic bar failure & know that visually, it's unlikely that the rider could ever tell that there was a problem with the bars before the failure.

All that being said..........I've been riding carbon forks for years with no problems.......of course, I inspect them carefully periodicially and if I have any major impacts, I'll replace the fork IMO, better to be safe than sorry.

I would suspect that for the majority of carbon failures, there was some precipitating event (a crash, a fall, an impact...etc) that the rider didn't think was significant & then turned out to be wrong about because there was no visual indicator.

IMO

len


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*what?*



thien said:


> New article by Kurt Gensheimer - Check it out, weigh in with your thoughts in the comments section!
> 
> http://reviews.roadbikereview.com/blog/why-you-should-be-riding-steel-and-not-carbon/
> 
> ...


Poor design is poor design. The material does not matter. A poorly designed Carbon frame will have fauklts as will a poorly designed steel one. Fit, another huge issue as are wheels, components riding style etc etc.

If yiou want to sell a product, start a web page and go nuts. There are materials...and then there are bad designs. Pros ride what the team rides, its money from a sponsor, you ride what you are given. 

I ride a steel frame now, but again, it fits me.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

StillRiding said:


> The failure mode of a composite structure depends on the design of the structure, the materials used, and the method of construction. In a past life I owned a company that designed and fabricated composite aircraft components so I do have a little experience in this area. A composite structure can be designed to have a failure mode like crystal or one *like a mesh basket*....it all depends.
> 
> My point being that it's not the carbon that's the problem with broken carbon frames. What is the problem is either use outside of design parameters (curb crashing), poor design, or improper fabrication. If the failure mode of a carbon frame is truly a serious problem, it wouldn't be much of a challenge to change that mode, and lawyers today would make darned sure that bike manufacturers made those changes (think lawyer-tabs).


Show me a carbon fiber bicycle frame designed to have a failure mode so that failure is controlled and "like a mesh basket" and I'll shutup.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Scooper said:


> Show me a carbon fiber bicycle frame designed to have a failure mode so that failure is controlled and "like a mesh basket" and I'll shutup.


You already said you'd shutup in post #129.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

StillRiding said:


> You already said you'd shutup in post #129.


Only if I failed.


----------



## The Green Hour (Jul 15, 2008)

I totally agree with what SCooper has to say. Anyway you look at it, carbon fiber fails catastrophically. Yes you can get lay-ups in carbon fiber that do this and that, but how many off the shelf manufacturers offer those lay-ups in favor for lightweight.

How many top professional riders would choose their current bike if they only had one bike (and only one) to use all season, and if it failed, they were out for the rest of the season? :idea: 


I rode and enjoyed a carbon bike for 10 years, and went back to steel for many of the reasons that SCooper mentioned. I would have had to go custom to get exactly what I wanted in carbon, but my budget didn't allow that, with steel it did with no performance loss on my part . I'm not against carbon, but know and realize it 's weaknesses compared to the other materials. Bottom line, there is nothing outdated or degrading about riding a material other than carbon. Its' unfortunate that the marketing dictates you will under perform on anything but carbon fiber.


----------



## rdalcanto (Mar 2, 2008)

This really comes down to personal preference and the type of riding you do. If you live in a relatively flat area, you can have a heavier steel bike and enjoy the ride. Here in the mountains, where every ride I do includes a 6-10 mile climb up 6-10 percent grades, you couldn't pay me to ride a steel frame. I know I'm much faster on a 16lb, super stiff carbon bike. Most serious riders here are on carbon because on these mountains, it is a faster climbing bike, and I don't see them failing left and right.... I posted a link a few posts back on lateral stiffness and bending test of different frames. The steel frame was a wet noddle compared to the Cervelo R3. I'm not saying all carbon bikes are stiff, but the newer models from the big manufacturers are all getting better. My brothers Specialized Rubaix Pro from a few years ago (carbon) also feels like a wet noddle compared to my new Delta 7 Ascend (carbon/kevlar Isotruss structure).


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh man*



rdalcanto said:


> This really comes down to personal preference and the type of riding you do. If you live in a relatively flat area, you can have a heavier steel bike and enjoy the ride. Here in the mountains, where every ride I do includes a 6-10 mile climb up 6-10 percent grades, you couldn't pay me to ride a steel frame. I know I'm much faster on a 16lb, super stiff carbon bike. Most serious riders here are on carbon because on these mountains, it is a faster climbing bike, and I don't see them failing left and right.... I posted a link a few posts back on lateral stiffness and bending test of different frames. The steel frame was a wet noddle compared to the Cervelo R3. I'm not saying all carbon bikes are stiff, but the newer models from the big manufacturers are all getting better. My brothers Specialized Rubaix Pro from a few years ago (carbon) also feels like a wet noddle compared to my new Delta 7 Ascend (carbon/kevlar Isotruss structure).


What a total crock.

"Serious cyclists", Steve Larsen, out in Oregon, on Bachelor, rode steel, most folks I know who live in Denver or CA, ride what feels right for them, carbon steel, Ti etc etc etc This whole material thing is a crock, its what fits you. As to serious, I am sure Steve would be on beer 3 and burrito 2 after banging your girlfriend as you seriously rode your carbon frame.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

If this is coming down to a weight argument then I'd like to add that I once heard "if you're getting shelled on climbs then it certainly ain't the bikes fault....!"


----------



## rdalcanto (Mar 2, 2008)

ttug said:


> What a total crock.


ttug - Come out to Salt Lake, and I bet you a $100 you'll be faster on a long climb on my bike than on what ever you are riding now.

P.S. - the fact that Lance Armstrong could beat almost anyone here while riding a tricycle doesn't mean you won't be faster on a lighter setup while climbing. Why do you think pros race mountain stages on light frames with light wheels? On my old bike, when I went to a 1300gm wheelset I instantly climbed faster. Now that I went to a lighter, stiffer frame (same wheels) I got faster again (racing the clock) - same climbs, days apart. Sometimes I think people on forums just want to argue....


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

you do realise all their bikes have to weight 6.8kgs don't you....?


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

re riding carbon versus metal in the high mountains. 

Andy Hampsten may not agree.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/pro-bike-andy-hampstens-cycles-strada-bianca-ti-16577
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/life-is-good-for-a-former-giro-ditalia-champion

i have it on good authority that a 50yo Jeannie Longo still races and wins on a metal race bicycle (Ti).

There is a bike test in lates RIDE (Australian) magazine on a Baum Titanium Corretto. The complete bike is NOT UCI legal, it is only just over 6.5kg. It is super expensive (AUS$18K)but the point is that you can make a lightweight bike from other than carbon.


----------



## rdalcanto (Mar 2, 2008)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you couldn't make a light bike from anything other than carbon. Ti probably rides great, but is going to be much more flexible isn't it?

Yes, there is a weight limit on how light a bike can be. How many Tour de France riders were doing mountain stages with heavy disc wheels and frames? In the last 5 years, how many TDF winners and Polkadot jersey winners have there been on steel bikes? (I don't know the answer, I'm really asking). 

My brother and I lived in Cleveland for 5 years. Doing rolling rides there on my old bike I had no problem with the weight of my bike and wheels I had at the time, or keeping up with anyone while tipping the scales myself at 180lbs. I don't know where you guys are riding now, but if you aren't going up huge mountains with your body at the limit the entire climb, you're just not going to appreciate the time savings a few pounds will translate to. People out here don't spend hundreds of dollars to save a hundred grams here and there because it looks cool. Noone can tell what stem or bar I'm riding. We spend the money because after you've trained as hard as your schedule will allow, shedding weight will help you get that personal best time on climbs like "little cottonwood" to Snowbird ski resort (about 10 miles, 3,300 verticle, 8-12% grade).


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

rdalcanto said:


> ttug - Come out to Salt Lake, and I bet you a $100 you'll be faster on a long climb on my bike than on what ever you are riding now.
> 
> P.S. - the fact that Lance Armstrong could beat almost anyone here while riding a tricycle doesn't mean you won't be faster on a lighter setup while climbing. Why do you think pros race mountain stages on light frames with light wheels? On my old bike, when I went to a 1300gm wheelset I instantly climbed faster. Now that I went to a lighter, stiffer frame (same wheels) I got faster again (racing the clock) - same climbs, days apart. Sometimes I think people on forums just want to argue....


I'm with you on that a lighter/stiffer bike climbs faster than a heavy one.
I think what everyone is trying to say is that the difference is very small.
The placebo affect probably makes up for more than the efficiency of a lighter bike.
The aerodynamic of frame/wheelset probably has a bigger affect than the weight even when you climb (as long as the speed is somewhat reasonable).


----------



## rdalcanto (Mar 2, 2008)

When I leave my house, I do one of four rides. All four are big mountain climbs. There is little draft at these climbing speeds, so aerodynamics doesn't count for much. Here is the profile for Stage 4 of Tour of Utah today. I circle "Little Cottonwood Canyon" which is one of the four climbs I do. The altitude is in meters. It is under 10 miles, 3300 feet of climbing, 8-12% grades. Probably considered an HC category climb. 










The other rides are similar. I just got back from doing "Big Cottonwood." It is 2 miles from my house to the start of the climb. The climb is 14 miles with 3,672 feet of climbing, and a false flat 40 minutes into it for a little recovery. I did it recently in 1hr 15 minutes on my old bike, with my brother dropping me the last ten minutes, and my heart rate so high it is a miracle I didn't die. Today, on the new bike, I was 1hr 12 minutes, I never really suffered, I actually took a long pull on the false flat (the only place drafting really helps), led some climbs, and beat him at the sprint at the top (In retrospect, I could have gone faster, I just kept waiting for him to hurt me). To you, 3 minutes might not seem like a lot. If I was riding by myself every ride, it wouldn't matter (I would just try to better myelf on what I had). But I wanted to be able to stay with my 150lb brother on all these climbs without sustained hear rates in the high 170s with maximum rates in the 180s (that REALLY HURTS) and the new bike allows me to do that without turning myself inside-out every freaking ride. 

So if you live in a relatively flat area, and like your steel bike, great! It will last forever! If you live in the mountains, and are a stronger climber than your friends, then great! - you don't need to go lighter and can enjoy the smooth ride of steel! But if you climb up a wall every ride like I do, and your riding partner is a light weight climbing GOD, then a few minute advantage by going very light and stiff is worth every penny, even if the ride is much harsher on your body. If you STILL want to argue with me on this, please, send me an email when you are coming to Salt Lake, and lets go ride up some huge mountains together. Half way up, when you are asking for an ambulance, I'll let you ride my bike....


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

rdalcanto said:


> .... If you STILL want to argue with me on this, please, send me an email when you are coming to Salt Lake,


I test road a set of these today for 60 miles. Talking about a carbon frame and fork with these Topolino CX2.0's wheels ...it's beyond great.:thumbsup: 

Topolino, the company is right down the street from me. Helps.

Great review on your rides by the way.

Cool


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

rdalcanto said:


> Yes, there is a weight limit on how light a bike can be. How many Tour de France riders were doing mountain stages with heavy disc wheels and frames? In the last 5 years, how many TDF winners and Polkadot jersey winners have there been on steel bikes? (I don't know the answer, I'm really asking).


None.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

spade2you said:


> None.


Really stupid question. Entering into 100% carbon this year myself, I noticed the LBS did not have all the specific torque wrenches to fasten down seat clamps, stem to steering tube, stem to bars etc. While speaking to me that early February morning setting up the bike they talked "over tightening" and failures. I scratched my head and thought, "Ummm and how do they guess what's correct with a plain olde allen key wrench?"

I went out immediately and purchased several torque wrenches in inches [small fortune]. One, a Ritchey 5Nm torque 4mm key I carry in my saddle bag. You'd be surprised how many fellow carbon friends under torque their fasteners from lack of proper tools. Not over torque mind you, ...under torque.
*
I wonder how many failures of carbon are related to not properly setting up the torque specs correctly for day one?*

Just a question.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

rdalcanto said:


> When I leave my house, I do one of four rides. All four are big mountain climbs. There is little draft at these climbing speeds, so aerodynamics doesn't count for much. Here is the profile for Stage 4 of Tour of Utah today. I circle "Little Cottonwood Canyon" which is one of the four climbs I do. The altitude is in meters. It is under 10 miles, 3300 feet of climbing, 8-12% grades. Probably considered an HC category climb.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With all the new steel alloys out today, a steel frame can be built to be both lightweight and stiff. I'm not sure what kind of carbon frame you have but even if it's something like a R3, you can get a good steel or ti frame that will come in at a few hundred grams heavier. Those 250 grams or so will not break you in the mountains. My R3 has been sitting collecting dust since I got my lightweight ti frame in. I live near the dolomite mountains in Italy and do plenty of HC climbs. My times have not gone up or down since switching to a 250 gram heavier frame. What I do get is more peace of mind knowing that I will be able to see a problem arising in my frame ( no sudden surprises if inspected regularly) and that it is repairable if crashed.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

kyler - this is turning in a bit of







as there's really no convincing people that the extra 250 grams is what is killing their times on the climbs.

There's a couple of places where this has been debated ad nauseum and even with the science to prove otherwise people still believe they need that uber light frame for the hills.


Although there's that placebo effect that even mathematics cannot legislate for - so who am I really to try and argue with that.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Tinea Pedis said:


> kyler
> 
> There's a couple of places where this has been debated ad nauseum and even with the science to prove otherwise people still believe they need that uber light frame for the hills.


I'm wondering if kyler uses the same set of wheels on each frame? If many who move over to a new ride also move over to lighter and better designed wheels as well. To be honest, wheels could give that false positive of efficiency thought to be felt in your frame. As I wrote a couple posts earlier, I just test rode a set of Topolino's today. Though we had some terrible head winds today [hurricane Bill off east coast] my carbon frame and fork felt completely different - lighter, smoother and effortless over familiar roadways.

Putting all that aside now, by placing those same exact wheels on a mix frame [alloy-carbon] or a light weight steel frame [holding same geometries] would make an interesting examination climbing.

Lastly, I whole heartily believe that carbon will improve year after year. It's really in its infancy. Ti, steel, and alloy has been around awhile so let's see what another decade of research and development produces with carbon.

Lastly, lastly it's has "always" been about weight when concerning cycling. It's not a new phenomena. If steel came to market 500 grams lighter then any carbon frame by design miracle it would be under the arse of every pro cyclist before you could snap fingers.

It's always been about weight, always.

[just my three cents] 

LOL


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

EverydayRide said:


> Lastly, I whole heartily believe that carbon will improve year after year. It's really in its infancy. Ti, steel, and alloy has been around awhile so let's see what another decade of research and development produces with carbon.


Mmm... not precisely. 

AFAIK, carbon fiber monocoque frames were pioneered by Kestrel back in the mid-80s, so they've been around for almost 25 years. It's not exactly in its 'infancy' anymore. Maybe young adulthood?

Carbon-tubed bikes (i.e. lugged) have been around since 1975 (the Exxon Graftek). So that's 34 years.

Titanium? Since at least 1974, with Teledyne, though there are reports that Speedwell made a few Ti frames back in the '60s (welded by Lamborghini!). Still, the use of titanium in bike frames doesn't pre-date the use of carbon by that much. 



> Lastly, lastly it's has "always" been about weight when concerning cycling. It's not a new phenomena. If steel came to market 500 grams lighter then any carbon frame by design miracle it would be under the arse of every pro cyclist before you could snap fingers.
> 
> It's always been about weight, always.


I dunno... I think with the bike industry, the one constant is that money talks and bs walks.

If steel somehow overnight became much more profitable than carbon, trust me, you'd see a ton of steel in the peloton. And a ton and a half of _very_ relentless marketing that proclaimed it the best thing since sliced bread, fire, and the wheel. 
.


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 25, 2009)

I must say that while some of you make some valid points as to the general failure mode of the different materials, the single-sample examples of CF frame failure (which some of you seem to believe is undeniable proof that CF frames are akin to ridable party poppers) are a bit ill-informed, unscientific, and on logically shaky ground.

First, suggesting that 2 or 3 pictures constitutes proof of anything is borderline ridiculous. I'm sure Mercedes has sold a couple lemons right off the lot. Does that make them a poor car manufacturer? No. Testing a hypothesis necessitates a large number of unbiased observations, not just picking and choosing whatever you want to see.

But if we really want to stick with just a few biased examples, I'm convinced that for every story involving an exploding CF frame, I can find one to match of a rider sustaining significant injuries from their stressed steel frame buckling underneath them. When the rider is in the hospital getting their face patched up, I don't think it really matters to them whether their frame is in 2 pieces or bent into a nice V.

Now before anyone thinks I'm a CF fanboy, let's just make it clear that I ride aluminum (I know, I know) and believe there are definite benefits to both CF and steel. But if we're going to continue to beat a dead horse, I think we all owe it to ourselves to come up with something more persuasive than a jpeg and a biased anecdote.


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 25, 2009)

And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

I haven't seen too many pic's of Mercedes failing in the manner the carbon pictures depict.

And no one was (or at least I hope they were not) taking it as gospel that "carbon will explode - it's just a matter of time!".

I think you missed the point - which was the means by which carbon fails and how that compares to other materials such as steel. The pictures were simply supporting evidence, the main crux was the elementary differneces between the materials.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

EverydayRide said:


> I'm wondering if kyler uses the same set of wheels on each frame? If many who move over to a new ride also move over to lighter and better designed wheels as well. To be honest, wheels could give that false positive of efficiency thought to be felt in your frame. As I wrote a couple posts earlier, I just test rode a set of Topolino's today. Though we had some terrible head winds today [hurricane Bill off east coast] my carbon frame and fork felt completely different - lighter, smoother and effortless over familiar roadways.
> 
> Putting all that aside now, by placing those same exact wheels on a mix frame [alloy-carbon] or a light weight steel frame [holding same geometries] would make an interesting examination climbing.
> 
> ...


I moved all the components, to include the wheels, over from my Cervelo. Well...I did need a 5mm shorter/4 degree more drop stem due to the different geometry between the frames...but that's it. Saying wheels will change that much of a difference in your ride feel (especially when climbing) is opening another can of worms...tires and air presuure, more likely.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

Tinea Pedis said:


> there's really no convincing people that the extra 250 grams is what is killing their times on the climbs.


You're right about that...


----------



## AndrewClarke (Jul 29, 2009)

st3v3 said:


> I must say that while some of you make some valid points as to the general failure mode of the different materials, the single-sample examples of CF frame failure (which some of you seem to believe is undeniable proof that CF frames are akin to ridable party poppers) are a bit ill-informed, unscientific, and on logically shaky ground.
> [...]


You're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to my and others' arguments.

I am not saying that I have determined that carbon frames must asplode spectacularly because I have seen a few photos on teh internets.

I am saying that from a materials science point of view, carbon, by its nature, will tend to have a different failure mechanism than steel, titanium, or aluminium alloys.

You are confusing empirical (I have seen some broken frames) with scientific evidence. The broken frames, as someone else has said, are just a convenient pictorial example of the underlying truth.

BTW, I'm not knocking carbon either. I'm considering buying one. But it is just something to consider.

- Andrew.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

kyler2001 said:


> Saying wheels will change that much of a difference in your ride feel (especially when climbing) is opening another can of worms...tires and air presuure, more likely.


I'm riding heavy DT Swiss RR 1.2 [580 gram weight rim] with 32 3x front/rear, maybe around ++1900 gram with Conti 4000S 700x25's. Moving over to a very compliant and well designed system at 1200-1300 grams -especially speaking of an object in motion would most certainly impact performance [I used my Conti 700 x 25's for the comparison test]. If it has such little impact why would anyone change up their wheel sets for different types of competition unless for ...

And I just don't get it when everyone assumes that we're all riding on velvety smooth roadways around here, when it fact the vast majority are pot holed, creaking, railroad rural, ill repaired or stone and tar. More then half my rides are over loose small stone-gravel w/sprayed tar topping this time of year.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Mmm... not precisely.
> 
> AFAIK, carbon fiber monocoque frames were pioneered by Kestrel back in the mid-80s, so they've been around for almost 25 years. It's not exactly in its 'infancy' anymore. Maybe young adulthood?


I was riding with an amateur club in france during '82-86 and we had team bikes in '85 with carbon top tubes and rear seat stay epoxied under Peugeot. These often came unglued. It didn't help that we'd lean our bikes against the walls in Biscarosse propping ourselves up to peak over at the beaches before a race start.

Carbon has been around. You're correct. Has carbon been so emphasized as it is presently though? One of the main driving forces of carbon is not just frames but components. Like I said, my FSA hollow is a work of art and only 580 grams. Bars, stems, seat posts, pedals are also driving its future. It's around to stay. So, in retrospect the "total" plunge into carbon is more than recent.

Aluminum, steel and ti are still founded by the same techniques of fabrication. Jig, torch, tube. Different day, different temperature, different bead from a different rod. These processes have been around forever in comparison to carbon.




SystemShock said:


> I dunno... I think with the bike industry, the one constant is that money talks and bs walks.
> 
> If steel somehow overnight became much more profitable than carbon, trust me, you'd see a ton of steel in the peloton. And a ton and a half of _very_ relentless marketing that proclaimed it the best thing since sliced bread, fire, and the wheel.
> .


If steel frame came down to $8.00 USD total manufacturing price each, incl fork and 1/3 of the pro teams jumped on board ....because of your theory on expense ...you'd see some mid season changes if those steel [heavier frames] didn't place first. Mark those words.

It's always about weight... and if you're on the band wagon focused on production cost and profits ...why for decades has the enthusiasts put down thousands of dollars [personally earned not sponsored] to buy the latest and lightest? I remember paying $200 for a pair of Campy Super Record road pedals in the late 70's and minimum wage was $2.70 [but I was farming that summer at $1.71/hr].

Another thought, perhaps steel or alloy is not as "GREEN" a material environmentally. No pun intended. The rarity of Bauxite and the metal commodities exchanges...

feather falling to floor.


:thumbsup:


----------



## TiBike (Aug 2, 2004)

*a question...*

I'll throw in a question with all the other assertions...

Wouldn't a steel bike, custom built with light, stiff steel, selected for the rider's preferences and geometry built to fit offer a pretty competitive option to an off the shelf carbon frame? Just askin'.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

TiBike said:


> I'll throw in a question with all the other assertions...
> 
> Wouldn't a steel bike, custom built with light, stiff steel, selected for the rider's preferences and geometry built to fit offer a pretty competitive option to an off the shelf carbon frame? Just askin'.


Absolutely [on fit alone], most cyclists I've seen on the road are not correctly fitted to their own bikes off the LBS floor. It would also eliminate those risks of having bigger eyes then stomach theories for a Clydesdale who was misinformed while buying his 1500gram carbon frame because he read the words, "Strong."

This a special market though. It would mean you'd have to educate oneself around the needs of a proper bio mechanic, the advantages of proper positioning, and the advantages in VO2 uptake with proper seat height and over all fit ...in other words it would take an experienced cyclist - targeting a specific purpose intended for focused out come ...whether it be daily ride comfort [due to proper fit] or over all performance [because it fits].

I have a Profica 57cm steel frame and fork, my last road bike custom fitted before leaving france end of 1999. The jerk who brought it over decided he couldn't figure out how to loosen the stem to pack the bike correctly for the airport journey [a friend of mine no longer]. I brought over my own mountain bike first. Once I settled down in CO he visited bringing my road bike. I am very interested in getting this bike back on the road. He destroyed the stem bolt and steering tube, bars and fork with all that sticking out of the box unprotected. I can tell you from memory that riding this bike for thousands of kilometres a season there was a feeling of absolutely nothing under me. It was just there and responsive.

My SuperSix has that feeling too now ...after 4 months of adjustments and I'd really like to compare them both, side by side.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

TiBike said:


> I'll throw in a question with all the other assertions...
> 
> Wouldn't a steel bike, custom built with light, stiff steel, selected for the rider's preferences and geometry built to fit offer a pretty competitive option to an off the shelf carbon frame? Just askin'.


Absolutely, no question about it. If you pay top dollar, you can get yourself a steel steed that comes very close to the lightest carbon wonders out there. Building a steel bike that is at the UCI weight limit is entirely possible. Of course, at that point you can do the same with carbon, for less money.

Look, I have been riding a steel frame for many, many years. I will also say that nothing beats steel in ride quality (although titanium does come close). On the other hand, comparing equal dollars, you'll get _slightly_ more prformance from a carbon frame (theyre easier to tune with respect to lateral stiffness/vertical compliance, for one). One also has to keep in mind that, when it comes to ride comfort, the frame itself has a relatively limited effect. Wheels, tire pressure, even saddle post, saddle and handlebars/bar tape are more important in most cases. With a good choice of these items, a carbon bike can come very, very close to the best steel bikes out there.

As far as failure of frames is concerned: IMHO, the fears of catastrophic failure of carbon frames are vastly overblown. I do not know of any case where something like that ever happened around my area, but I do know people riding their carbon frames in the most punishing environments, with no maintenance whatsoever. One of them rides this six-year-old Madone, probably 20,000 punishing miles on it (he's a Cat-3), hairline cracks in the seat tube, hairline cracks in the bottom bracket, but he's going as strong as ever (and, of course, no such bullshit as the frame "getting soft"....). I am not sure a steel frame would have taken that kind of beating, and held up so well in the process. I have seen plenty of steel frames with cracks at the bottom bracket as well. As a matter of fact, rephrasing what I just said in stronger terms, I am certain that many, many steel frames would not have survived the treatment this guy gave his Madone.

Finals words: Ride whatever blows your skirt up. There's a large selection of materials that can be used to build great frames, each with their pros and cons. Just ride and enjoy!


----------



## st3v3 (Jul 25, 2009)

AndrewClarke said:


> I am saying that from a materials science point of view, carbon, by its nature, will tend to have a different failure mechanism than steel, titanium, or aluminium alloys.


I don't think that's something I'm having a problem grasping. In fact, I believe my first sentence in the post was... "I must say that while some of you make some valid points as to the general failure mode of the different materials..." I never picked any bones with the *fact* that carbon tends to break instead of bend.



AndrewClarke said:


> You are confusing empirical (I have seen some broken frames) with scientific evidence. The broken frames, as someone else has said, are just a convenient pictorial example of the underlying truth.


And no, I'm not. In fact, that was the entire point of my post. These pictures people have dug up of asploded frames are indeed empirical evidence (as they are an observation), but are being *touted* as scientific proof as carbon explosions are not only possible, but likely. If you're going to give an accurate depiction as to how often carbon fails in comparison to other carbon frames as well as steel frames, you should also be showing carbon frames which withstood impact, steel frames that withstood impact, and steel frames that stressed and collapsed. But clearly someone who dogmatically believes CF frames explode wouldn't take the time to do that.

Perhaps it was wrong of me to single out only one side, but that's just where I saw the most egregious/least principled arguments coming from.


----------



## Dubla-Va (Aug 15, 2009)

I am new to road biking and I am new to this forum. But I do have some experience w/ fabrication.

Questions: 
#1. What is the most non aerodynamic part of a bike rider on the road?
#2. Which improves aerodynamic better deep dish aero wheels or a helmet?

Answers: 
#1.The human.
#2. The helmet

Example of fabrication: 
#1. Take a car run a 1/4 mile. Now lose 100 lbs (in the car) the car will be .1 sec faster. Add the 100lbs back and make the car 10% more aerodynamic and you will see that it is .1 sec faster than the car's first run (now this is considering all other conditions have not changed i.e. reaction time, temp, and hum)

#2. Take a 1" dowel rod appox. 2-3' in length and break it over your knee. Now take 7 1/8" dowel rods and do the same (holding them all together in a circle). You will notice that the 7 are harder to break and lighter. Now for a really hard core experiment take 7 1/8" dowel rods and make hexagons out of them and glue them to gather and turn it on a lathe till it is a circle then break it over your knee. You will notice that making the laminated dowel rod is approx 50% stronger than either.

#3. To overcome the drag created by a 1" down tube you must elongate it by 5". The UCI has set rules to govern the aerodynamics of bikes please see here: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NTI0MDY&LangId=1
In short they have a 1cm to 3cm regulation

Now all this being said (including the UCI rules). Carbon fiber can be manipulated in ways that metal can not with out increasing the weight to improve aerodynamics. Carbon fiber can improve weight, and keep its structural integrity because it is molded not bent (when metal is bent heated or unheated it loses some of its strength) but you can also forge any metal in the same shapes as carbon fiber but you increase the weight. That’s why the pros use carbon fiber. The manufacturers sell it because they have to in order for their teams to use them in races (please see UCI rules). One person a couple pages ago "Lance Armstrong could beat everyone here on a tricycle" true or not I would beat money he could (I am not a betting man). But the pros use carbon fiber because to perform at their pentacle they must take advantage of every aspect they can. This is why they spend time in wind tunnels and consult with nutrition specialist as part of their training.

So which is better metal of carbon fiber?

EXTREME TEST (please do not try this but there is some idiot that will):
Drive a Toyota Prius into a bridge support at 75mph. Then drive a Ford F250 at another bridge support at 75mph. either way you will NOT walk away. My point is a bike is designed to ride not be hit by cars and if you are hit it does not matter what the bike is made of.

All this said it is sill the rider that is the biggest factor in speed and performance NOT the bike. And it's all about the ride anyway


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

EverydayRide said:


> I was riding with an amateur club in france during '82-86 and we had team bikes in '85 with carbon top tubes and rear seat stay epoxied under Peugeot. These often came unglued. It didn't help that we'd lean our bikes against the walls in Biscarosse propping ourselves up to peak over at the beaches before a race start.
> 
> Carbon has been around. You're correct.


Yup. As I also said:


SystemShock said:


> Carbon-tubed bikes (i.e. lugged) have been around since 1975 (the Exxon Graftek). So that's 34 years.


And that one had problems staying glued too, IIRC.




EverydayRide said:


> Has carbon been so emphasized as it is presently though? One of the main driving forces of carbon is not just frames but components. Like I said, my FSA hollow is a work of art and only 580 grams. Bars, stems, seat posts, pedals are also driving its future. It's around to stay. So, in retrospect the "total" plunge into carbon is more than recent.


Even if you change the discussion from frames to components, carbon still isn't a super-duper-recent development.

Zipp, for example, states that they began working on their carbon cranks in 1995. That's 14 years ago. And while I don't know for certain, I would be a little surprised if that was the very first carbon component.



EverydayRide said:


> Aluminum, steel and ti are still founded by the same techniques of fabrication. Jig, torch, tube. Different day, different temperature, different bead from a different rod. These processes have been around forever in comparison to carbon.


With respect, I don't think it's quite that simple. Some of the equipment is the same, but the materials remain very different. Ti, for example, is far harder to work with than steel or Al. Aluminum has some very different characteristics than steel or Ti that force it to be designed significantly differently (no fatigue limit, for example).

Just because you know how to design and fabricate a good steel frame doesn't automatically mean you know how to design and fabricate a good Al or Ti frame. It's oversimplifying to say the differences are trivial.




EverydayRide said:


> If steel frame came down to $8.00 USD total manufacturing price each, incl fork and 1/3 of the pro teams jumped on board ....because of your theory on expense ...you'd see some mid season changes if those steel [heavier frames] didn't place first. Mark those words.


It's not about expense or pro teams saving money... I think your misunderstanding the argument. It's about sponsorship– since the teams _don't exist _without it– and what the bike industry can sell for greatest profit.

Right now, carbon frames tend to be immensely profitable. Many of them don't cost all that much to make, yet can sell for thousands of dollars. Cha-ching! And thus the industry is very incentivized to push carbon because of that.

With respect, it's _not_ just about light weight... many Ti frames are very light as well. Have you checked out the Litespeed Ghisallo, for example? 1.7 lbs in size M. That's lighter than nearly all carbon frames. Don't know if it's uber-stiff, but no doubt many lightweight riders and weight weenies would still be interested even if it wasn't.

But, as I said before, Ti is a hard material to work with. The material itself isn't cheap, and it's labor-intensive. This increases its expense, and decreases its profitability.

Starting to put two and two together? 
.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Yup. As I also said:
> 
> And that one had problems staying glued too, IIRC.
> 
> ...


Agreed and sorry for the side tracked remarks.


SystemShock said:


> Zipp, for example, states that they began working on their carbon cranks in 1995. That's 14 years ago. And while I don't know for certain, I would be a little surprised if that was the very first carbon component.


You wouldn't catch me ever riding on carbon wheels. 

I was thinking heavily on this subject today while riding 50 miles in between thunder storm. You'd never catch me riding a motorcycle with a frame made of carbon fibre either [example is a trellis frame on my ducati]. Wouldn't happen. Novelty and engineering feat for a road bicycle I'm all about that. I'd never ride carbon fibre on a mountain bike, never. That's where I stand on seeing it's limits under conditions out of my control. Mountain Bike. Forest, tree, rock, bad hop explode = long walk. Motorcycle, in the bubble, rolling over uneven expansion surfaces at speed and death. I do only metal.


SystemShock said:


> With respect, I don't think it's quite that simple. Some of the equipment is the same, but the materials remain very different. Ti, for example, is far harder to work with


I'm actually heavily involved in titanium for over three years, and I mean heavily involved. It's a very difficult material to work with and not very forgiving for it's fabricators. It's not bicycle related.


SystemShock said:


> Just because you know how to design and fabricate a good steel frame doesn't automatically mean you know how to design and fabricate a good Al or Ti frame. It's oversimplifying to say the differences are trivial.


Completely agree. Again sorry for the over simplification. I associate with a person in Connecticut who's recently started fabricating his own carbon frames in small proportions. He wants to remain small. He's seen the likes of Cannondale and others get too stretched out over their own mission statements. I've watched his fabrication process. It's amazing. I can't even tell you what it is to sit there and watch computer models transform feather weight sheets with real human "manual" hand labour to fine art. There's silence in the shop. You're not hearing saws blaring or torches howling. Nothing clangs. You don't smell smoke or see flame. It's an amazing happening. It's art. I hope it stays around.


SystemShock said:


> It's not about expense or pro teams saving money... I think your misunderstanding the argument. It's about sponsorship– since the teams _don't exist _without it– and what the bike industry can sell for greatest profit.


Again, now I understand how the phrase/sentences were intended and I misdirected the response. I see your point, others too.


SystemShock said:


> Right now, carbon frames tend to be immensely profitable. Many of them don't cost all that much to make, yet can sell for thousands of dollars. Cha-ching! And thus the industry is very incentivized to push carbon because of that.


But I remember those first Ti frames, I think it was Speedwell Sach's? and those forks moving around like egg beaters early 1981. That metal was spooky even then. As far as making thousands of dollars, the industry makes thousands of dollars in mass production. Why you should be riding Steel vs. Carbon is saying that steel admits it's now a niche market and not a commodity. It's specialized [no pun intended].


SystemShock said:


> With respect, it's _not_ just about light weight... many Ti frames are very light as well. Have you checked out the Litespeed Ghisallo, for example? 1.7 lbs in size M. That's lighter than nearly all carbon frames. Don't know that it's particularly stiff, but no doubt many lightweight riders and weight weenies would still be interested.


I've ridden on one last year actually, short ride. I won't comment for the shape I was in. The owner loves the bike though. When I parked my arse on the Cannondale SuperSix this past February in my LBS... it just said to me ..."This fits." After 4 months of playing with the seat, stem and stuff ...that bike is perfect [until just today, but I'll get to that later]. I base my favouritism from experiences acquired owning custom steel frames. I know what I'm looking for in fit and the SuperSix fit me. The Trek 5.2 didn't and all the specialized bikes were "iffy." It's just shopping around for that close fit that counts.


SystemShock said:


> Starting to put two and two together yet?


Let me tell you what this thread has done for me personally. In europe where I lived and raced as an amateur we'd never discuss weight. Why I am here, no clue. But you got me rattled on my ride today.

I don't do the iPod, I listen while riding and heard a creaking noise.... Rain was heading my way and I picked it up a bit. At 23mph something snapped, I lost control momentarily and hit the brakes carefully to stop. It wasn't carbon thank g*d. It was an aluminum seat post bolt. The last 10 miles standing up in a 53 x 12 taking the flat way backfor comfort sake I was still over 18.7 mph average for my day. But I was rattled. And I am old.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


> It was an aluminum seat post bolt.


ControlTech, eh? There's a reason some manufacturers like to spec their bikes with this stuff, rather than, say, Deda, or Reynolds, or Easton: It's cheap. And it performs accordingly.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Pirx said:


> ControlTech, eh? There's a reason some manufacturers like to spec their bikes with this stuff, rather than, say, Deda, or Reynolds, or Easton: It's cheap. And it performs accordingly.


Agreed.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


> You wouldn't catch me ever riding on carbon wheels.


What a coincidence. I don't think you'd catch me when I'm using my carbon wheels.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

spade2you said:


> What a coincidence. I don't think you'd catch me when I'm using my carbon wheels.


Brake pads. Once I saw what they use for brake pads ...I just cringed and said "I'm getting too old."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


> Brake pads. Once I saw what they use for brake pads ...I just cringed and said "I'm getting too old."


Depends on the type of rim. Many will have an alloy surface, which is no different. Sure, the carbon surface requires a special pad, but so far I feel my Mavics stop much smoother than my alloy rims. I'm able to stop just as quick and the slowing feels a lot more controlled.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Depends on the type of rim. Many will have an alloy surface, which is no different. Sure, the carbon surface requires a special pad, but so far I feel my Mavics stop much smoother than my alloy rims. I'm able to stop just as quick and the slowing feels a lot more controlled.


The owner of the bike shop rides them, many, many miles a season and wouldn't trade them for anything... he even owns a Scott Addict CR 'something' and the Zipp Wheels and uses it as his "winter bike" believe it or not ...again saying exactly what you're saying.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


> The owner of the bike shop rides them, many, many miles a season and wouldn't trade them for anything... he even owns a Scott Addict CR 'something' and the Zipp Wheels and uses it as his "winter bike" believe it or not ...again saying exactly what you're saying.


I can't speak for Zipp, but I'm immensely impressed with Mavic's Cosmic Carbone Ultimates. If tubulars weren't so expensive and a PITA to change, I'd use my Mavics year round. The light weight and medium depth offer pretty nice versatility. As an ultra-lightweight, I probably shouldn't get anything deeper, but I've been very impressed with them all around. 

I'm not saying everyone should get and use carbon rims and/or tubulars, but they've gained popularity for a reason or two.


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

st3v3 said:


> And no, I'm not. In fact, that was the entire point of my post. These pictures people have dug up of asploded frames are indeed empirical evidence (as they are an observation), but are being *touted* as scientific proof as carbon explosions are not only possible, but likely. If you're going to give an accurate depiction as to how often carbon fails in comparison to other carbon frames as well as steel frames, you should also be showing carbon frames which withstood impact, steel frames that withstood impact, *and steel frames that stressed and collapsed*.


Bingo! You've found the real crux of the issue here!

It's not about whether the frame fails or not - but rather the *method* and way in which this failure occurs. The pictures, again, are no proof to say that carbon fails but rather as proof of the method by which it does.

And as cliche and absurd as it sound, in comparison to the other materials out there, carbon does _have the potential to_ "explode".




st3v3 said:


> But clearly someone who dogmatically believes CF frames explode wouldn't take the time to do that.
> 
> Perhaps it was wrong of me to single out only one side, but that's just where I saw the most egregious/least principled arguments coming from.


Not sure if I'm the only one who found these last two sentences ironic...


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

*Being Sensational Pays!*



Tinea Pedis said:


> Bingo! You've found the real crux of the issue here!
> And as cliche and absurd as it sound, in comparison to the other materials out there, carbon does _have the potential to_ "explode".


Think about all the millions of dollars you could make as a lawyer representing the hundreds of millions of carbon fibre frame users across the world as they explode.

I thought those date line and "entertainment tonite" shows had it coming anyway.

You are the mann!:thumbsup: 

















____________________________


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

Sensationalism at its very finest.

I hate the term - but I wasn't the one who coined it...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


>


You've never seen someone taco an alloy rim?


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

spade2you said:


> You've never seen someone taco an alloy rim?


LOL 

It was a joke, my humour. I was watching the Tour of Ireland and saw this crash [obviously in the final sprint to the finish line]. Any wheel would have taco's itself. Please, don't take this as being an attack on carbon wheels... it was meant to be a "sensationalistic story" photo....

LOL.

:thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

EverydayRide said:


> LOL
> 
> It was a joke, my humour. I was watching the Tour of Ireland and saw this crash [obviously in the final sprint to the finish line]. Any wheel would have taco's itself. Please, don't take this as being an attack on carbon wheels... it was meant to be a "sensationalistic story" photo....
> 
> ...


Gotcha. I've seen a few taco'd wheels and a few carbon wheels that had problems. Christian VdV was taken out of the Giro because someone put a foot through his carbon spokes, enducing an endo. With metal spokes, he probably would have done the same endo and probably hurt the dude's foot, whoever that was.


----------



## nagatahawk (Jun 14, 2007)

I have always ridden steel frame bikes. My fav was a Pohglagi Colubus Tubes fluted and butted. but it got stolen. next frame was not as nice was sold but had a cracked bottome bracket. My current is a Debarnardi steely, not as quick as the others, it has touring geometry. I prefer criterium frames, but still the Debarnadi is pretty nice.

I like the old school look, with chrom forks, Columbus drop outs, campy rear axle aduster, one piece stem/ fork, and brazed lugs. It is all campy with Vuelta Super Corsa wheels, 1440 grams/ continental tires. it's plenty zippy and the tires stick like glue.

I've ridden super light carbon frame bikes. Yeah the are faster, look uber cool and weigh nothing compared to my steel dinosaur. But I still prefer steel. I hope to get a hold of a Masi steel frame. My lbs told me can get one. He was looking at me like I was crazy when I inquired. heh! I love the chrome brazed on lugs and the thin tubes, with modern wheels, its all very romantic looking. my next choice would be a colnago master cx. with a carbon fork. That should ride like a dream. I don't race, but used to do triatholons. The tri bikes have now evolved into top end TT bikes.


----------



## ahmed (Jul 15, 2009)

i loved the first line in that youtube vid 

" bryan baylis, a man who needs probably no intriduction to those who know him"

ahahha really? 

last tiem i checked introductions are for the first meet, not with friends.

great journalism there


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

ahmed said:


> i loved the first line in that youtube vid
> 
> " bryan baylis, a man who needs probably no introduction to those who know him"
> 
> ...


Brian's product is great. He made some excellent points in his video if listening carefully. He used several times the phasing, "Old Skool" as a target market for the younger generations attraction to his product contrary to those who are on the "carbon" kick. 

Myself? Look at this rear stay. That's a track bike, fixed gear, campy. That is purely art. I could only dream how this bike would ride once touching the boards.

The guy is truly an artist.:thumbsup:


----------



## Tinea Pedis (Aug 14, 2009)

I'd have the bike in that clip in a heart beat!

And for the amount of hours that were put in I actually thought the price was quote reasonable...


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Tinea Pedis said:


> I'd have the bike in that clip in a heart beat!
> 
> And for the amount of hours that were put in I actually thought the price was quote reasonable...


Steel babie! :thumbsup:


----------



## judoman (Aug 30, 2009)

Just put a straight bladed steel fork on my columbus steel frame. Replaced a full carbon fork. A little heavier, bettter handling, Liked the feel .Plus, not worrying about the fork chattering if something from the road hits it is nice.


----------

