# Is the sagging popularity of ti and steel a self-fulfilling prophecy?



## RichardT (Dec 12, 2010)

I started riding about 7 years ago and since that time I've owned two carbon bikes and one aluminum. I'm curious about the ride qualities of steel and ti bikes, and I love how some of them look. So I'd consider buying one -- except that I've never actually seen one at any of my local bike shops, so a test ride seems out of the question. On top of that, buying ti or steel these days seems to require paying full retail, whereas you can get some really good buys on carbon or aluminum. For example, the last bike I bought was a 2011 Litespeed Archon C1 (carbon). I bought it on clearance at my LBS in 2012 for $2,000, about 50% off MSRP. I love the bike and I believe I got a great buy. Now, the same LBS has on its website the Litespeed T1 and T3 frames  (ti) for $4,000 and $3,000, respectively. I've never seen them discounted and I suspect the shop doesn't even carry an inventory of them. Seems like the same story for quality steel road bikes. I keep reading about them, but I've never actually seen one for sale in a bike shop. 

So here's what I'm wondering: If ti and steel really offer a ride quality that a lot of cyclists would enjoy (despite the fact that they're a bit heavier), why don't local bike shops carry at least a few high-quality ti and steel bikes? The obvious answer is that it's a niche market. But if shops don't put them on the floor to sell where you can touch them and take them out for a test ride, and maybe pick one up on clearance, then the market for these bikes will always be niche. Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy, or am I missing something?


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

I can't speak for steel vs. carbon b/c I've never felt the urge to spend money I don't have on carbon... maybe down the road when I'm doing better than just getting by.

If you don't have any steel offerings in your bike shops, you are either in an area with a limited number of bike shops... or you aren't looking very hard.

Ti is a niche. The only majorly distributed manufacturer using any Ti (that I can think of off hand) is Salsa. I don't think I've ever been inside a shop that carried Lynskey. Steel is easier to find... anyone who sales a lot of QBP brands (salsa, all-city, surly) or Bianchi will probably have a few in stock. Kona has a few steel frames that may be on display. I haven't seen a steel specialized tricross anywhere but they make one now. The Trek options in steel were always easy to find (most recently the Gary Fisher Erwin and its sister models, but those are no longer being made).

I think it has a lot to do with marketing... steel frames tend to be sold more to a commuter crowd. It's definitely a niche if you want a steel bike with race geometry. I've seen a couple of All-City Mr. Pinks around (usually in the same shops that serve a lot of commuters).


----------



## kjdhawkhill (Jan 29, 2011)

1. check around, most of the issues I'm about to raise were covered in other threads
2. Its about the money.
3. Not the customers', but the margins for the sellers (manufacturers). 
3b - any retailer is more or less in a relationship with their wholesalers and aren't likely to spend inventory money on product that offends their primary wholesalers. 
4. I like my titanium road frame, never ridden carbon much, but I will, at some point, own a carbon bike
5. I have an aluminum frame that gets it's rear end handed to it on gravel and pavement... it will be replaced with steel or titanium when it goes. imagine rail-road ballast hitting a clearcoat protected carbon down tube at 25 mph.... just gives me a weak stomach.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

Well for one thing ti is very hard to weld, you need real training to do that. 

Steel on the other have is very easy to work with, either lug and tube or fillet brazing. 

But, and this is just my opinion, the buying public has (and still does) demanded lighter weight. And there is no practical way to make either of those bikes weigh as light as a good carbon bike. You can talk all you want about the "feel" of steel (FYI not every frame has that) but it's a nebulous thing at best. Where as putting a bike on a scale is concrete proof which bike is better ( sad but unfortunately too many people believe this) 

In the end there are places for steel bikes , look at soma and surly. Great frames at affordable prices. But they are a small drop in the bucket compared to today's market. 

Bill


----------



## kjdhawkhill (Jan 29, 2011)

headloss said:


> I haven't seen a steel specialized tricross anywhere but they make one now.


 That, was, apparently a one year deal. 

Specialized Bicycle Components

They are making some sort of touring frame thing in steel....

Raleigh is now into steel a little deeper, with a few more models of road and cross bikes along with a high end mountain frame...


----------



## SteveV0983 (Dec 9, 2008)

I believe a lot of it boils down to price. As was mentioned above, most shops carry several specific brands and most carbon brands offer bikes in a variety of price ranges. Walk into a local Trek or Specialized store and you can find carbon bikes anywhere from $1000.00 up. But they are all made in China (at the low end price point) by cheap labor. Steel, and especially Ti, are not blown out in cheap factories but are typically made by skilled craftsman. This keeps the price higher, which in turn creates a smaller market. (I know, I know, there are plenty of real high quality CF bikes out there also, but not at the sub-1K price range). There are plenty of places where someone can walk into a shop and see great quality steel and Ti bikes, including several offerings from each line. It doesn't sound like you live near one of those shops. But it's no different than cars in that most people have a Ford and a Honda and a Toyota, etc dealer within a few miles of their homes. But not everyone lives near a Porsche or a Ferrari or a Bentley dealership. But they are out there and they are doing very well, just like the steel and Ti brands are doing well.
Also, a large majority of the population want what the pros ride and whatever is the hot new item and right now, that is typically carbon. People are sold on the fact that they need the lightest bike out there (personally never understood that one), so most shops would find it in their best interest to offer what's in the highest demand. My LBS sells nothing but CF in all price ranges (and a few less expensive aluminum), but they helped me buy a Ti bike through them because that is what I wanted. When it showed up, everyone was ogling this bike and when I asked the owner why he didn't carry them, he said because everyone in this area wants CF. Seems to me like a little bit of that whole chicken or the egg thing......


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

crossracer said:


> Well for one thing ti is very hard to weld, you need real training to do that.
> 
> Steel on the other have is very easy to work with, either lug and tube or fillet brazing.
> 
> ...


not so fast there, cowboy!

Carbon-fiber bikes are lighter because generally they are cheap pieces of sh** where durability has been clearly compromised in order to make them lighter - even the super expensive ones. Seriously, until CF became the norm, back when aluminum or ti were the go-to materials for top-end frames, do you ever remember hearing the term "rider weight limit" in reference to a frame? I don't.


When you cut out parts like headset bearing cups and bb (metal) threads, parts that prevented frames from becoming disposable items, frames become lighter. Similarly, the CF "tubing" is lighter as well, and somehow I doubt it's because they're making stronger and stronger carbon fibers.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

I have no proof and may be wrong, but I'd be inclined to believe that people tend to keep steel and titanium bikes longer. Since they tend to be more durable and lend themselves to repair much easier than carbon or aluminum, there's no reason to discard them after a few years (besides just wanting a different frame). The whole n+1 thing not withstanding, if you have one or two bikes you like that you know will last without any special care (beyond normal wrenching), you wouldn't be looking to replace those bikes every couple of years. No bike shop is gonna keep items in stock that aren't gonna sell but one or two every six months (if they're lucky).


----------



## pdh777 (Oct 7, 2005)

There is also the demand side of distribution. As mentioned above the public is very aware of CF, it is in all the bike shops. A lot of young people work in bike shops - some of them know nothing about Ti or Steel. These are the mouth pieces of the materials being sold. Further, you rarely see Ti promoted in cycling mags - and only a little more frequently do you read about steel in the same publications.
By what other method would a new consumer find out about these materials - they most certainly visit LBS and may read a mag or two and probably listen to their friend (whatever the friend rides will have a strong influence). The more seasoned cycling consumer may know more about Ti and Steel - but even then the odds are small that they ride either. 
Go on a group ride or an organized event for charity - what is the ratio of CF and AL vs Ti and Steel? 50 to 1? *What the general cycling public is exposed to is what they buy. *What is considered modern and visible (exposure) is what the American consumer gravitates towards - same with technology, TV's, phones and basically anything else in our culture that is for sale. You have to investigate and be more resourceful and probably have more cycling knowledge to go for Ti or Steel. 
I would say that there is a lower cost market for the more inexpensive steels (4130, 525), but at this similar price point is AL - which is also more readily available.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Also consider that many of the main mfg'ers of steel and titanium have a certain image they want to project, or a type of customer they would prefer to have. They aren't looking to sell to the faceless hordes, but more to the informed consumer. There was a shoe company (I forget the name) that had an ad campaign "If you're not an athlete, please don't buy our shoes". I'd lay odds many of those mfg'ers are the of the same mindset, they don't want some once a month riding poseur buying their bikes, they want an informed rider who's gonna get out there and put down some good miles. Once a person's been riding and wrenching enough to do the research on parts and frames, you learn about Lynskey, Moots, Litespeed, Cyfac, Colnago, Waterford, and others who don't really advertise (or not much), but are available to those who know what they want (and are willing to pay for it).


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

RichardT said:


> I keep reading about them, but I've never actually seen one for sale in a bike shop.


I haven't gone to a bike shop to buy a box bike in 30+ years. Bike shops for the most part are set up to sell a brand, and stock what will sell, not to have it sit on a shelf.


RichardT said:


> Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy, or am I missing something?


What exactly is the prophecy that you are referring to?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

There is also the perception that steel or Ti frames are all custom and thus expensive. This couldn't be further from the truth. Us small framebuilders have the ability to build to desired, or needed, specifications, and provide a more intimate purchase with the customer. Plus, most of us warranty our work for the life of the frame. Frames come in usually between 1500-2000g and build up in the 16-19lb range. That's not heavy and they ride great.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I think, at one point, Ti bikes were once popular before CF took over as the most popular material to use for bikes. CF is cheaper and lighter to manufacture than Ti framed bikes. Yes, CF bikes are all made in China, where labor is much cheaper. Ti, on the other hand, is hand crafted, mostly in the USA. Yes, they are more expensive, but I feel they will probably last much longer that CF bikes. 

When I was looking to buy a new road bike four years ago, I went into a local bike shop and was talking to one of the mechanics, who owns a Ti bike. Although the shop didn't sell Ti bikes, he told me I'd be much better off with a Ti bike than a CF bike. He was telling me the life expectancy of a CF bike was no more than 5-8 years before developing stress fractures. I thought about it, did some research, and couldn't find any other shops in my area that carried Ti frames. When I looked online, I found Lynskey was the closest to me. I inquired, and chatted online with a Lynskey rep. I came very close to buying one of their Ti bikes, but they were out of my budget. I had $3300 cash and that was it. I went back to the LBS and bought a Bianchi Infinito. It was a good riding bike for almost a year, and then it happened. I was pedaling on a smooth paved road, and I heard a loud "POP". Then my chain was jumping to different cogs and skipping. I pedaled slowly back home and discovered a small crack in the rear seatstay. The frame was sent back to Bianchi, where they gave me two choices. They could send it to Calfee and have it repaired for $500, or they could send me a new frame for $600. I opted for the new frame, had the bike put back together, rode it for a short time, then sold it on ebay. I also sold the cracked frame on ebay for $500. Maybe what happened to my CF Bianchi was a freak accident, but I'm not taking another chance. 

I also know a local bike rider that was pedaling his bike when his front CF fork cracked and he went head over heels over the bike, broke his collar bone and needed surgery. He also cracked his cheekbone and had bad road rash on his hands and forearms. He needed plastic surgery on his face.

I will not buy another CF frame again. I am currently just pedaling a Giant Escape 0 flat bar, aluminum framed bike. It's just an in-betweener bike until I can get enough money together to buy a Ti bike. Lynskey has a sale going on right now that looks pretty enticing. I personally


----------



## RichardT (Dec 12, 2010)

mikerp said:


> What exactly is the prophecy that you are referring to?


A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that alters behavior and therefore becomes true. I'm suggesting that bike makers and sellers have predicted that there's no more than a niche market for high-quality ti and steel road bikes, and through their own behavior in recent years -- i.e. not even attempting to sell them in a mass-market way -- they've caused that prediction to become true. Not to get off on a tangent, but I'm reminded of vinyl records. Record labels practically stopped making them after CDs came out, but the continued demand for vinyl has caused record labels to re-think this strategy, and I now see new turntables being sold again as well. 

By the way, I am referring to bikes with racing geometry that would be comparable, in terms of geometry and components, to my current line-up of carbon bikes (Giant TCR Advanced and Litespeed Archon C1). If there are any such bikes for sale at a bike shop near me -- I've been to 4 or 5 in my area -- I haven't seen any sitting on the floor that I could ogle, much less test ride. One of the posters here suggested I find a Bianchi dealer. I looked that their website, and it looks like they don't even make a steel bike that has components comparable to my carbon bikes (Dura-Ace and SRAM Force).


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

It's a given Ti and Steel are a niche market at point, they have been for a good while. Litespeed (when they were no longer Lynskey managed) jumped into the carbon market, lets face it you can make a much larger profit on a piece of carbon with some minimal skilled labor vs working with metal. As the items are niche, and have been for a long time, it's doubtful that you will find a bike that you are looking for at a dealer. You can build one of these types of bike up, or have a shop build you one; the parts are readily available.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

I agree completely. Heck my main ride is a 30 year old steel Columbus slx frame. 

I was just saying that too many people equate weight ( or lack of) to higher quality. There is a reason why my bike is 30 years old and still giving great service. 

Jamis makes some nice steel also 

Bill


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

adjtogo said:


> Lynskey has a sale going on right now that looks pretty enticing. I personally


]
Check Lynskey's site often especial after the holidays as they do some special runs. They did clearance out last years frames at half price. They have even adopted a European trend and are offering financing.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

crossracer said:


> I agree completely. Heck my main ride is a 30 year old steel Columbus slx frame.
> 
> I was just saying that too many people equate weight ( or lack of) to higher quality. There is a reason why my bike is 30 years old and still giving great service.
> 
> ...


I wonder what the durability would be of a carbon frame with the same weight as a 30 year old steel frame.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

My LBS has a Seven bike on display. One bike. The mechanics there all love steel bikes and Campy. How many steel bikes do they have? With the exeption of some hipster single speed bikes, none. Campy Equipped? Not a single bike. 

They are primarily a Trek and Specialized dealer. They're in the business to sell bikes, and those bikes are apparently what many people want. I sure see a lot of them around. A good bike shop is one that turns a profit.

I think the carbon fiber trend is turning on itself. I'm seeing more and more titanium and steel bikes out there than I have in years. It's still a small minority, but it appears to be growing.

If you want to try a titanium bike out, you don't have to spend a ton of money. Buy a used frame on ebay. Buy a group from one of the UK shops on the web. Get every part you want. Hunting down stuff can be kinda fun. I recently did a couple steel Eddy Merckx bikes that way for me and my wife. I ride between 4000-5000 miles a year and half of those miles are on a 1999 Litespeed Ultimate (titanium). I plan to be buried with that bike.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

pmf said:


> half of those miles are on a 1999 Litespeed Ultimate (titanium). I plan to be buried with that bike.


 
I picked up a 95 Ultimate, mounted my 80's Campy NR/SR group, Campy low flange hubs/mavic rims, Cinelli stem and bars. I needed better frame geometry than I had on my old Columbus frame. Still need to attache the headbadge.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

On a related note, while building up the Paramount with Campy components... I've managed to find not a single Campy component at any LBS. Thank goodness for the internet. Personally, I find that which is not readily available the most enticing!


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2013)

Stones Cyclery in Alameda Calif only sells steel frames and steel bikes. Primarily Waterford, Gunnar, Bob Jacikson and Surly. Basically from pretty expensive to affordable. I have been in there many times as I kept going back to look at the Gunnar. 

But the Pro's ride on Carbon bikes and that is what the young cyclist will look to. The manufacturers are making them and they sell very well. Steel will probably always be around but Carbon rules right now. Aluminum frame bikes perform very well, they hold up and they can be manufactured cheaply. They are here to stay.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

A guy I know built up a custom Ti Caletti, no expenses spared. He also has three Calfees and a handmade Baum. The guy is super smug when it comes to his bikes and an outspoken elitist. Overall, he's a bit of a selfish a-hole. 

I wonder if that has anything to do with it.


----------



## jct78 (Dec 12, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> A guy I know built up a custom Ti Caletti, no expenses spared. He also has three Calfees and a handmade Baum. The guy is super smug when it comes to his bikes and an outspoken elitist. Overall, he's a bit of a selfish a-hole.
> 
> I wonder if that has anything to do with it.


haha. i love my steel caletti!!!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

jct78 said:


> haha. i love my steel caletti!!!


For sure, Calettis are awesome bikes.


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

I guess it is a little different where you are than here in CO. I know several shops that carry ti. You're right though. Inventory is not the same as other bikes. Then again they custom fit the ti to exactly what you are looking for.


----------



## warren128 (Jul 30, 2004)

pmf said:


> My LBS has a Seven bike on display. One bike. The mechanics there all love steel bikes and Campy. How many steel bikes do they have? With the exeption of some hipster single speed bikes, none. Campy Equipped? Not a single bike.
> 
> They are primarily a Trek and Specialized dealer. They're in the business to sell bikes, and those bikes are apparently what many people want. I sure see a lot of them around. A good bike shop is one that turns a profit.
> 
> ...


I agree, you don't have to spend a lot of money. This is exactly what I did, but in time-delayed way.  Five years ago, I found a used, 1996 Litespeed Classic (Lynskey Era) on Ebay for an irresistibly low price ($350), and proceeded to spend a year locating Campagnolo parts. After all the parts were gathered, I got busy with life, and everything sat in my basement untouched until about 2 weeks ago, when I finally got around to putting everything together. In total, I paid less than $1000 for frameset and parts to have the TI bike that I always wanted. No regrets for me, I love the way it looks and rides.










--Warren


----------



## mapeiboy (Oct 31, 2007)

adjtogo said:


> I think, at one point, Ti bikes were once popular before CF took over as the most popular material to use for bikes. CF is cheaper and lighter to manufacture than Ti framed bikes. Yes, CF bikes are all made in China, where labor is much cheaper. Ti, on the other hand, is hand crafted, mostly in the USA. Yes, they are more expensive, but I feel they will probably last much longer that CF bikes.
> 
> When I was looking to buy a new road bike four years ago, I went into a local bike shop and was talking to one of the mechanics, who owns a Ti bike. Although the shop didn't sell Ti bikes, he told me I'd be much better off with a Ti bike than a CF bike. He was telling me the life expectancy of a CF bike was no more than 5-8 years before developing stress fractures. I thought about it, did some research, and couldn't find any other shops in my area that carried Ti frames. When I looked online, I found Lynskey was the closest to me. I inquired, and chatted online with a Lynskey rep. I came very close to buying one of their Ti bikes, but they were out of my budget. I had $3300 cash and that was it. I went back to the LBS and bought a Bianchi Infinito. It was a good riding bike for almost a year, and then it happened. I was pedaling on a smooth paved road, and I heard a loud "POP". Then my chain was jumping to different cogs and skipping. I pedaled slowly back home and discovered a small crack in the rear seatstay. The frame was sent back to Bianchi, where they gave me two choices. They could send it to Calfee and have it repaired for $500, or they could send me a new frame for $600. I opted for the new frame, had the bike put back together, rode it for a short time, then sold it on ebay. I also sold the cracked frame on ebay for $500. Maybe what happened to my CF Bianchi was a freak accident, but I'm not taking another chance.
> 
> ...


I am sorry to hear about your bad experience with Bianchi Infinito . I have a Colnago Extreme power frame for the last 6 years and not a problem so far . I do not baby it and have ridden over all type of roads .


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

In my younger days in the 70's and 80's I rode a number of high end steel bikes including a Masi, DeRosa and Mercian. When Trek came out with their first OCLV bike in 1992 I bought one and never looked back. I rode that bike until 2000 when the bottom broke and Trek replaced it with a new frame for no charge. The carbon did not fail, there was design problem with the aluminum shell separating from the carbon which was a common problem with the first generation of OCLV frames. I rode that until a few years ago when I replaced it with a Specialized Tarmac S-Works. I also own a Calfee tandem. In my experience carbon has the following advantages over steel and Ti:

It is lighter

It is stiffer (better power transmission)

It is better at damping vibration

It can be formed into virtually any shape which allows the frame to be optimized for certain characteristics.

It is extremely durable unless it is impacted which might happen in certain crashes.

It does not rust.

I feel carbon bikes are in general just better than steel and Ti and that is why they have taken over the market. I have seen many Ti and steel frames fail, the argument that carbon is fragile and steel is indestructible just isn't true. Of course all of this is subjective and I have nothing against those those would prefer a steel or Ti frame.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

adjtogo said:


> the life expectancy of a CF bike was no more than 5-8 years before developing stress fractures.


I don't know if this is accurate. Aluminum fatigues with time...but carbon fiber? 

Moreover, I think that 5-8 years is a long life for a bike, especially if it is ridden regularly. My current training bike is a Carbon Specialized Tarmac SL2. It gets 10,000+ miles a year and was originally sold in 2007 or 2008. It's has seen several wheelsets. It's on its second drivetrain, second headset, second or third bottom bracket, etc. 

This used to be my race bike. Now it's an everything bike, including being a rain bike. I do the Saturday morning hammerfest on this bike as well as the Tuesday night practice race. I ride down stairs with this bike and do not shy away from broken footpath or pine needle shortcuts. I bunny hop up curbs and stairs, do wheelies, and descend at 55+ mph on this bike. 

And I am a sprinter. I am not nice to my bikes. After all of this abuse, who can tell me that carbon is fragile? 

I've also tried to destroy some carbon fiber bike parts in a vice grip and with a hammer. Carbon is incredibly strong. 

I'm not the absolute defender of carbon fiber, I just think the idea that a CF bike going to unpredictably explode is based on "I heard about a guy" horror stories and hystrionics. 



> I also know a local bike rider that was pedaling his bike when his front CF fork cracked and he went head over heels over the bike, broke his collar bone and needed surgery. He also cracked his cheekbone and had bad road rash on his hands and forearms. He needed plastic surgery on his face.


That's awful. 


> I will not buy another CF frame again. I am currently just pedaling a Giant Escape 0 flat bar, aluminum framed bike.


The Giant Escape has a carbon fiber fork, as do the majority of steel, ti and aluminum bikes. From what I have seen, it appears that it is mostly the lower-end factory bikes which come with aluminum or steel forks.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

Nice looking bike you did well.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

warren128 said:


> --Warren


Did you remove the decals yourself? If so, do you have any tips? My Litespeed is about to rebuilt and I'd like to remove the decals and polish it up a little. Its a satin finish now. I don't want it shiny, just a little cleaned up.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

jnbrown said:


> It is stiffer (better power transmission)


I have no issues with fiber reinforced plastic bikes, but this statement is not true. Steel is stronger than Ti, Aluminum, and CF.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*If you have no issue, why call the frames plastic?*



88 rex said:


> I have no issues with fiber reinforced plastic bikes, but this statement is not true. Steel is stronger than Ti, Aluminum, and CF.


Surely he means pound for pound stiffer. My Ridley Helium has an <900gram frame and is one of the stiffest bikes I've ever ridden. My buddy's Madone is 750 grams. If you were to build a steel frame between 750 and 900 grams, would it be at all rigid? 



Not trying to pick a fight here. But let's be fair


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

88 rex said:


> I have no issues with fiber reinforced plastic bikes, but this statement is not true. Steel is stronger than Ti, Aluminum, and CF.


That's not true (or necessarily false because there are varying qualities of each and thickness matters).
On a 'per weight' basis carbon fiber is much stronger and fatigue resisting properties are much better too.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

pmf said:


> Did you remove the decals yourself? If so, do you have any tips? My Litespeed is about to rebuilt and I'd like to remove the decals and polish it up a little. Its a satin finish now. I don't want it shiny, just a little cleaned up.


Acetone/Lacquer Thinner and a rag (it will melt/dissolve the decal), followed up with some Simichrome for gloss, the scotchbrite for satin.


----------



## BlazingPedals (Apr 4, 2013)

RichardT said:


> So here's what I'm wondering: If ti and steel really offer a ride quality that a lot of cyclists would enjoy (despite the fact that they're a bit heavier), why don't local bike shops carry at least a few high-quality ti and steel bikes? The obvious answer is that it's a niche market. But if shops don't put them on the floor to sell where you can touch them and take them out for a test ride, and maybe pick one up on clearance, then the market for these bikes will always be niche. Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy, or am I missing something?


It's the same situation with recumbents. The problem is, shops have to pay their rent, keep the lights on, and meet their payroll; and niche bikes sitting on the floor don't make money for them. They're going to stock what sells.


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

den bakker said:


> I wonder what the durability would be of a carbon frame with the same weight as a 30 year old steel frame.


If you look back to the mid 90's many of the carbon bikes where an astonishing 17-18 lbs. that was amazing back then . I still have a mid 90's oclv that is giving great service. 

The quest for lighter weight has taken these frames to the ultra light , and in my opinion , limited time use catagory. 

I've allways said that people want to put their bikes on the diet they themselves won't stay on themselves. I've seen plenty of stomachs hanging out over ultra light racing bikes. 

It's all fun, if that's what you enjoy. But it ends up makeing people believe they need a 4-6-8 thousand dollar bike to be competive. Which they don't . 

Bill


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

I have to disagree here. I do not think carbon bikes have captured most of the market share because they are "just better". I think its mostly because they are lighter and unfortunately the current consumer values lightness over all other parameters. That, coupled with overseas manufactuering that allows a carbon bike to made very cheaply, has changed the market. Back in the 90's Aluminim bikes dominated the market because again they were lighter than the steel bikes that preceeded them. Today, you wont find many Al bikes at shops either (except at the low end) because they can no longer compete on weight. As for the implication that carbon is more durable than steel or ti, I would do a search of this forum. Practically every week there is a post here saying "my carbon bike broke; what do I do?". I own several steel bikes and a carbon bike. Despite the fact the the carbon bike is much lighter than the others its actually the bike I ride the least


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

crossracer said:


> If you look back to the mid 90's many of the carbon bikes where an astonishing 17-18 lbs. that was amazing back then . I still have a mid 90's oclv that is giving great service.
> 
> The quest for lighter weight has taken these frames to the ultra light , and in my opinion , limited time use catagory.
> 
> ...


carbon fiber holds up just fine then, nothing wrong with the material. 
I am guessing your "brick" CF frame from the 90s is lighter than the older columbus steel frame. and after 20 years it has not imploded under its own weight.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

I agree than steel and ti have become a niche. I suspect that even if shops stocked more steel and Ti bikes, the market share would not change much. As a steel guy I am perfectly happy with that. I like showing up for a ride on one of my steel bikes when everyone else is riding the same common-as-dirt Trek/Specialized/Cannondale. If you want to try a steel or Ti bike you may need to drive a bit to find a shop that has some. Alternatively you can take a chance and buy a frame on the internet or find one of the many custom builders.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DaveG said:


> I have to disagree here. I do not think carbon bikes have captured most of the market share because they are "just better". I think its mostly because they are lighter and unfortunately the current consumer values lightness over all other parameters. That, coupled with overseas manufactuering that allows a carbon bike to made very cheaply, has changed the market. Back in the 90's Aluminim bikes dominated the market because again they were lighter than the steel bikes that preceeded them. Today, you wont find many Al bikes at shops either (except at the low end) because they can no longer compete on weight. As for the implication that carbon is more durable than steel or ti, I would do a search of this forum. Practically every week there is a post here saying "my carbon bike broke; what do I do?". I own several steel bikes and a carbon bike. Despite the fact the the carbon bike is much lighter than the others its actually the bike I ride the least


of course most stories of failures are about CF frames if most people ride CF. but I'm sure you took that into account  
I have yet to break a carbon or aluminium frame or equipment. I wish I could say the same for steel.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

warren128 said:


> I agree, you don't have to spend a lot of money. This is exactly what I did, but in time-delayed way.  Five years ago, I found a used, 1996 Litespeed Classic (Lynskey Era) on Ebay for an irresistibly low price ($350), and proceeded to spend a year locating Campagnolo parts. After all the parts were gathered, I got busy with life, and everything sat in my basement untouched until about 2 weeks ago, when I finally got around to putting everything together. In total, I paid less than $1000 for frameset and parts to have the TI bike that I always wanted. No regrets for me, I love the way it looks and rides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice fork. which material?


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

den bakker said:


> carbon fiber holds up just fine then, nothing wrong with the material.
> I am guessing your "brick" CF frame from the 90s is lighter than the older columbus steel frame. and after 20 years it has not imploded under its own weight.


Oh yes, about four pounds lighter. No argument there. And the older carbon bikes that had more material are still running. 

But look at how many threads get started here every month with snapped carbon . These newer frames are pushing the limits of weight/longevity ratio ( just made that up ) . But they do seem to have a problem snapping. 

Plus look at the warranties ( or lack there of) that companies are offering now with their carbon. Seems you are lucky to get 3 to 5 years and that's it, 

Bill


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

crossracer said:


> Oh yes, about four pounds lighter. No argument there. And the older carbon bikes that had more material are still running.
> 
> But look at how many threads get started here every month with snapped carbon . These newer frames are pushing the limits of weight/longevity ratio ( just made that up ) . But they do seem to have a problem snapping.
> 
> ...


but that has nothing to do with carbon strings covered with epoxy. push the limit on steel frames and they will snap when you see a pot hole in the horizon.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Surely he means pound for pound stiffer. My Ridley Helium has an <900gram frame and is one of the stiffest bikes I've ever ridden. My buddy's Madone is 750 grams. If you were to build a steel frame between 750 and 900 grams, would it be at all rigid?


Good luck quantitating stiffness into any meaningful numbers regarding propulsion or ride quality. Regardless of material, marketing departments are doing a bang up job making folks believe the latest and greatest is xx% stiffer/lighter/compliant.


----------



## warren128 (Jul 30, 2004)

pmf said:


> Did you remove the decals yourself? If so, do you have any tips? My Litespeed is about to rebuilt and I'd like to remove the decals and polish it up a little. Its a satin finish now. I don't want it shiny, just a little cleaned up.


The previous owner removed the decals, so I have no experience with removing them. The suggestions that you got on your other thread seemed reasonable though .

--Warren


----------



## warren128 (Jul 30, 2004)

den bakker said:


> Nice fork. which material?


Thanks, it's a Look carbon fork, which came OEM from Litespeed on the Classic model that year (I think).

--Warren


----------



## crossracer (Jun 21, 2004)

den bakker said:


> but that has nothing to do with carbon strings covered with epoxy. push the limit on steel frames and they will snap when you see a pot hole in the horizon.


I'm not sure if we are discussing the same thing. You are right but any material pushed to it's limit will be fragile. But they arnt doing that with steel. They are doing that with carbon. If carbon bikes wernt so crazy with going for light weight we would probally have 16 lbs bikes with life time warranties as opposed to what we have now. 

Bikl


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

Any material with a design or manufacturing can fail regardless of material, we can agree on that. With carbon is not as issue of strength but one of sensitivity to small chips or dings that cause stress risers and can results in sudden failure. Let's try this test. I will whack my steel frame with a hammer. It will dent and I will continue to ride it until until I'm old and feeble. You do the same with your carbon bike. You can then lie awake at night wondering when that small chip or crack will fail catastrophically.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DaveG said:


> Any material with a design or manufacturing can fail regardless of material, we can agree on that. With carbon is not as issue of strength but one of sensitivity to small chips or dings that cause stress risers and can results in sudden failure. Let's try this test. I will whack my steel frame with a hammer. It will dent and I will continue to ride it until until I'm old and feeble. You do the same with your carbon bike. You can then lie awake at night wondering when that small chip or crack will fail catastrophically.


I prefer neither, having had a steel fork snap under me performing a very nice faceplant thank you very much. although that would never happen we all know only carbon fails catastrophically. 
but you first. please post a video of you taking a hammer to your frame. thanks


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

crossracer said:


> I'm not sure if we are discussing the same thing. You are right but any material pushed to it's limit will be fragile. But they arnt doing that with steel. They are doing that with carbon. If carbon bikes wernt so crazy with going for light weight we would probally have 16 lbs bikes with life time warranties as opposed to what we have now.
> 
> Bikl


yes you push weight limits on the material it makes the most sense. it's not like all carbon frames are sub two pounds, get a heavier one if you want. say over 50% heavier. can I have life time warranty on steel frames these days?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

crossracer said:


> Plus look at the warranties ( or lack there of) that companies are offering now with their carbon. Seems you are lucky to get 3 to 5 years and that's it


Back in the 1970s the only race bikes with warranties that I remember were Schwinn and Raleigh. And I remember a couple of Raleigh 753 frames folding up.
None of the Italian frames had warranties.


----------



## PbOkole (Feb 10, 2004)

warren128 said:


> The previous owner removed the decals, so I have no experience with removing them. The suggestions that you got on your other thread seemed reasonable though .
> 
> --Warren


Most of the decals on a Ti frame can be removed with acetone. Just soak a rag and start wiping. It evaporates pretty quickly so you may need to soak the rag a few times.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

A few things to keep in mind. One is there are more stories about CF breaking largely because most new bikes for the last several years are CF. Second many owners of old things (cars, cameras, tools, golf, etc.) want to justify to themselves why they keep the status quo and knocking the newest and greatest is the way to do that. Third lots of people just make up things for the reaction. Last there are jealous people who take shots ot anything they don't have.


----------



## maximus01 (Aug 8, 2008)

There are good and bad bikes made of each material. IMO the best reason to buy steel and Ti is custom sizing and price. The used Ti bike market seems really good right now since everyone is ditching their Ti rides for CF. You ought to be able to get on a mid 2000s machine with 10sp Dura Ace for around 1500. Hard to find that kind of value new and buying used carbon is iffy.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

DaveG said:


> Any material with a design or manufacturing can fail regardless of material, we can agree on that. With carbon is not as issue of strength but one of sensitivity to small chips or dings that cause stress risers and can results in sudden failure. Let's try this test. I will whack my steel frame with a hammer. It will dent and I will continue to ride it until until I'm old and feeble. You do the same with your carbon bike. You can then lie awake at night wondering when that small chip or crack will fail catastrophically.


Like I said earlier in the thread, I've put carbon bike parts in a vice and hammered on them. Carbon is surprisingly strong. 

Like this: Niner Bikes Fork Hammering - YouTube


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2013)

I was in a rather nice shop in Palo Alto Calif yesterday. I was looking for a rim but struck out on that. However browsing around they had a lot of bikes of different metals. Moots Ti bikes in abundance, Seven Bicycles (steel), Surly (steel), and a couple others. Nice shop actually. I thought the Moots Ti bikes were particularly striking to look at. I have no idea how a Ti bike rides. I have never ridden on one. Actualy I have never ridden on a Carbon bike.

Anyway I think bikes of the various metals remains reasonably popular.


----------



## MojoHamuki (Feb 20, 2009)

stanseven said:


> A few things to keep in mind. One is there are more stories about CF breaking largely because most new bikes for the last several years are CF. Second many owners of old things (cars, cameras, tools, golf, etc.) want to justify to themselves why they keep the status quo and knocking the newest and greatest is the way to do that. Third lots of people just make up things for the reaction. Last there are jealous people who take shots ot anything they don't have.


Said it best


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Just like any other frame material, there is good and not so good tubes. To really feel the qualities of steel, you need to buy something good. I would suggest you look to ebay for something from the mid to late 90's. You'll get a deal and great quality. I feel the best tube set of all time was the Columbus EO OS, light , lively, comfortable but still stiff enough for out of the saddle hammering. I'm not too impressed with todays steel. Yes it is a fraction lighter, but not enough to cheer about. If you could find a De Rosa Primato or a Tommasini in EL OS, you'd fall in love. I saw a fully equipped Primato in a 58 on craigs list for $1000 last night.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Derosa Primato with Campagnolo Chorus Groupo


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

kjdhawkhill said:


> 1. imagine rail-road ballast hitting a clearcoat protected carbon down tube at 25 mph.... just gives me a weak stomach.


think: electrical tape. I use it to protect my chain stays. My down tube is in good shape because it is usually protected by the front tire while riding. For the inevitable chips, nail polish works just fine.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

headloss said:


> Ti is a niche. The only majorly distributed manufacturer using any Ti (that I can think of off hand) is Salsa. I don't think I've ever been inside a shop that carried Lynskey. Steel is easier to find...


 Happen to have a shop within 5 miles that has more Lynskey's than any other bike. They carry Canondale and Raleigh too but Lynskey is what makes the shop stay busy (along with great service on any model you bring in for work). 

I'm probably buying a Lynskey for my next bike in the near future.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

Steel bikes still live just fine in the touring world, as the material just plain works. i have a Fuji Touring bike bought uses off from Craigs. Nice thing about these bikes is the real steel, but also the variety of tires to be had. Currently my bike sports 25mm racing tires, but i also have a pair of 32mm steel tires. 

To the common man touring road bikes look like racing bikes but i like to point out there there is No carbon to be found on my bike: NONE! For those that are just starting out, look at steel touring bikes, they will probably out live you and your kids. The ride is gentle and classy and generally can carry most anyone, even over weight types. 

Quality steel touring bikes under $1000 are found at Nashbar, Bikes Direct and others. After reading about the problems of carbon and aluminum bikes, i feel hesitant about even owning one.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

sport7 said:


> ... but i also have a pair of 32mm steel tires.


I bet you get a lot of mileage out of a pair.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

den bakker said:


> I bet you get a lot of mileage out of a pair.


 Now that you mention it: i do. The tires have a thick tread and no brand name, perhaps Kenda. The bead on the tires is steel, but working with them is not much hassle. Ha ha, no they are normal black rubber tires, thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

sport7 said:


> Steel bikes still live just fine in the touring world, as the material just plain works. i have a Fuji Touring bike bought uses off from Craigs. Nice thing about these bikes is the real steel, but also the variety of tires to be had. Currently my bike sports 25mm racing tires, but i also have a pair of 32mm steel tires.
> 
> To the common man touring road bikes look like racing bikes but i like to point out there there is No carbon to be found on my bike: NONE! For those that are just starting out, look at steel touring bikes, they will probably out live you and your kids. The ride is gentle and classy and generally can carry most anyone, even over weight types.
> 
> Quality steel touring bikes under $1000 are found at Nashbar, Bikes Direct and others. After reading about the problems of carbon and aluminum bikes, i feel hesitant about even owning one.


Steel is the material of choice for touring bikes because it can be repaired by local machinists without special equipment (for an aluminum bike you will need to have the frame re-tempered in a heat treat facility after it has been re-welded. This is the main reason it is used in touring bikes. As far as strength is concerned - a heavier carbon bike like a Madone 4.5 or Domane 4.5 will have a frame just as strong and crash worthy as a steel bike. 

It is sad that the bike companies have bought the idea that touring bikes have to be able to survive a trip through Afghanistan these days. My 2009 Trek 520 is three pounds heavier than my 1980 Trek 720, even though it only has 32 spoke wheels versus the 36 spoke wheels on the older bike. The weight is mainly in thicker walled steel tubing than the Reynolds 531 on the 1980 model. They both use double butted tubing, but the Reynolds tubing is substantially thinner (thus lighter) so it provides a much livelier and more forgiving ride than the new one. I know that the Surly Long Haul Truckers are in the same weight range as the new 520, so it appears that they are also using beefier tubing - all in the name of making a bombproof bike. 

Most long distance tourists in the US and Europe ride on good paved roads. I sure wish that the bike companies made a nicer touring bike for those who don't intend to tour the third world.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

sport7 said:


> To the common man touring road bikes look like racing bikes but i like to point out there there is No carbon to be found on my bike: NONE! For those that are just starting out, look at steel touring bikes, they will probably out live you and your kids. The ride is gentle and classy and generally can carry most anyone, even over weight types.


I got a good laugh when a neighbor referred to my 520 as a "racing bike."

I also like how any time I'm in a pack, no matter the speed, any children we pass seem to think it's a bicycle race.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

bradkay said:


> Steel is the material of choice for touring bikes because it can be repaired by local machinists without special equipment (for an aluminum bike you will need to have the frame re-tempered in a heat treat facility after it has been re-welded.


I think it's more so you can bend the frame straight yourself... and crawl into the next town for repairs. If I'm in a bad enough crash to require a machinist, I'm looking for a new frame to transfer the parts over to.

You also contradict yourself. If the desire to have a touring bike is repairability, then you don't want the thinner walled tubing that most welders don't work with. If you want to tour on a repairable bike, a tank is the way to go. If you don't, then get any of the numerous "credit-card touring bikes" out there. There are enough bikes in the market that there really is something for every taste and need.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

I can't worry much about weight on a bike designed for self contained touring. By the time you add fenders racks, stout wheels, bags, gear and clothes, brooks saddle, pedals with spd on one side and flats on the other, the extra couple of pounds in the frame doesn't really mean much.

I'm not going to claim that I am a typical steel rider, but my experience is that weight overall does not mean as much to the type of rider that prefers steel to carbon. There is a substantial difference in weight between my 853 Waterford, the 531 Mercian, and the 4130 salsa. I don't really have a favorite, but pick based on the type of ride and distance that I have planned. 

To stir things up a bit, I will suggest that the typical steel/ti rider is probably less concerned about speed that the rider that wants the lightest carbon bike. Probably related to the age demographic of the riders. 

I know there are always exceptions, but these are generalities that I seem to notice.

Bottom line. I believe that the steel/ti market is a limited market. I don't think it will ever disappear, but I also don't think it will ever be anything other than a limited market


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

headloss said:


> I think it's more so you can bend the frame straight yourself... and crawl into the next town for repairs. If I'm in a bad enough crash to require a machinist, I'm looking for a new frame to transfer the parts over to.
> 
> You also contradict yourself. If the desire to have a touring bike is repairability, then you don't want the thinner walled tubing that most welders don't work with. If you want to tour on a repairable bike, a tank is the way to go. If you don't, then get any of the numerous "credit-card touring bikes" out there. There are enough bikes in the market that there really is something for every taste and need.


What I meant is that the bike companies have bought the "tank" argument - and the idea that a steel bike can be repaired locally. I think that for most tourists in the western world that extra weight isn't necessary. I like having a true touring bike that is light, responsive and handles road vibrations the way a good racing bike does. That is what my 1980 720 made from 531 tubing was. The only reason I bought the new 520 is because the taller head tube makes the riding position more comfortable for my aging body.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Herbie said:


> I can't worry much about weight on a bike designed for self contained touring. By the time you add fenders racks, stout wheels, bags, gear and clothes, brooks saddle, pedals with spd on one side and flats on the other, the extra couple of pounds in the frame doesn't really mean much.
> 
> I'm not going to claim that I am a typical steel rider, but my experience is that weight overall does not mean as much to the type of rider that prefers steel to carbon. There is a substantial difference in weight between my 853 Waterford, the 531 Mercian, and the 4130 salsa. I don't really have a favorite, but pick based on the type of ride and distance that I have planned.
> 
> ...


You aren't understanding the argument about the weight of the tubing - the thinner walled tubing does a better job of absorbing road vibrations. When your bike is fully loaded it will not matter, but most riding on touring bikes is done unloaded when the difference in the ride is quite noticeable. 

Nowadays it doesn't matter as much to me since I have a couple of better bikes for day rides, but if I were reduced to one bike it would probably be my touring bike and I would prefer it to be a high end steel bike instead of a tank.

Personally, my "stout wheels" in the old days were 36H Nuovo Record hubs, 14G SS spokes and MA40 rims - not particularly heavy wheels. My touring bike without racks and packs weighed 22 lbs in its day - the new 520 in same configuration is 25lbs. Once you've loaded down the bike it isn't a noticeable difference but it certainly is on unloaded rides.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Sagging popularity of steel? I call BS.

We sell shed loads of steel framed cycles every year. Steel is alive and kicking, big style.


----------



## webbb (Nov 23, 2013)

hello new to the forum. I will be getting a new bike at the first of the year and i will be getting a ti frame. the LBS one of the employe's has a ti gt road bike. Im going to test it out as wells carbon. my current bike is aluminum so both will be better. but for me it would be nice to have something a little different the the carbon.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

I understood what you were saying with regard to the touring bike, I just disagree. Perhaps it is because you are thinking more about a bike for everything and I am thinking about a bike dedicated for self contained touring. The more you expect a bike to do, the more compromises you have to be willing to make.

For my purpose I want something that is steady. I don't really care about quick handling, weight etc. Judging by my experience with the Mercian I own with 531C tubing, I love the bike for long rides carrying a large seat bag, but to be honest I would not to use this bike in a dedicated touring frame As for the road vibration, the size of the tires does enough. The tubing and weight does not make a difference.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Herbie said:


> I understood what you were saying with regard to the touring bike, I just disagree. Perhaps it is because you are thinking more about a bike for everything and I am thinking about a bike dedicated for self contained touring. The more you expect a bike to do, the more compromises you have to be willing to make.
> 
> For my purpose I want something that is steady. I don't really care about quick handling, weight etc. Judging by my experience with the Mercian I own with 531C tubing, I love the bike for long rides carrying a large seat bag, but to be honest I would not to use this bike in a dedicated touring frame As for the road vibration, the size of the tires does enough. The tubing and weight does not make a difference.


Herbie, I disagree. While I know that tires make a huge difference (I prefer Vittoria Corsa CX - the best riding tires made, IMO) I also know that tubing makes a major difference as well. I know that my old Reynolds 531 touring frame handled heavy loads with aplomb. It was rock solid stable on all mountain descents (with full packs I used to hit 47mph on a very consistent basis) - I had a blast passing sixteen cars while descending Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain NP during my transcontinental ride. This was not with a light load - see the attached photo from earlier in that trip.








I believe that there have been a lot of myths the cycling industry has swallowed about touring bikes over the years. The present one is the predilection towards heavy frames. Grant Petersen, retro-grouch extraordinaire, makes touring bikes from lightweight tubing but appears to be the only one these days to do so. I may disagree with a lot of his ideas, but I agree with him here. 

Another myth about touring bikes that the industry had bought into for quite awhile was the "Half-step plus granny" gearing the Bicycling magazine used to promote. This was something like a 50-45-28 or 48-44-28 crankset. While this meant that a rider didn't have many overlapping gears it also meant that a touring rider either had to struggle up a climb in a higher gear than a racer would use or have to drop way down into the granny gears for almost any climb. In 1978 I switched to a triple crankset but used what would become the original mountain bike standard (48-38-28). While this meant that I had several overlapping gears it also meant that I didn't have to perform a bunch of double shifts and I could spend 80% of my time in the middle chainring (I used a 14-26 six or seven speed freewheel back in those days). This saved my knees and allowed for relatively fast touring when i needed to cover some distance. 

I think that there is room for both types of touring bikes - the tank for those who fear the unknown and the high end classic touring bike made for those who want it. But, alas, the industry isn't going to do it... other than Grant Petersen's offerings.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

this thread is now about touring


----------



## Lotophage (Feb 19, 2011)

TL/DR and all that.


Love steel. I have a custom steel randonneur, it's amazing. My steel Serotta NHX is one of the best bikes I've ever ridden, right up until I stumbled into a deal on a carbon frame. 

It's an older Tarmac. And, I hate to say it, but the mass-produced piece of black plastic is every bit the equal of the hand made steel serotta. It's just as comfortable, responsive, etc. I hate that fact, i wanted the carbon frame to suck but it doesn't. 

My steel pugsley fatbike frame was replaced this year with an aluminum Mukluk frame. It's lighter. It's a lot lighter. It doesn't rust. 

Carbon is a great material to make a bike out of. Steel is a great material to make a bike out of. Aluminum is a great material to make a bike out of.

They're all great materials and they all have their drawbacks. Aluminum will always be fat and chunky looking. Steel will always be a little heavier at anything other than stratospheric custom prices and carbon will always be about the most generic bike you've ever seen.

Suffice it to say, ride what you like, don't worry about what anyone else likes and don't be afraid to try new stuff.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

crossracer said:


> But look at how many threads get started here every month with snapped carbon . These newer frames are pushing the limits of weight/longevity ratio ( just made that up ) . But they do seem to have a problem snapping.


I have looked and came with and average of just above 0 per month. What's your count? Perhaps you should take your own advice and look? Or am I just missing the monthly avalance of exploding bike threads each month?


----------



## Dumbod (Dec 31, 2004)

Wow. This takes me back. The materials debate used to be a monthly feature of RBR and we haven't seen one in a while.

The only trouble is that they were stupid then and they are stupid now. Design is much more important than material in a frame. Any good designer can create a frame that matches the characteristics of any frame you can think of using any material that you can think of - assuming, of course that you have the money to pay for it.

I have high-end carbon, steel and ti bikes and I like them all. They have slightly different rides because they have different design characteristics but they all are wonderful to ride. I've ridden bikes in every material that were great and bikes that were awful.

Carbon became the flavor of the month when all of the pro teams started using it. Many people believe that the pros ride carbon so it must be the best. The reality is that the pros will ride whatever their sponsors tell them to ride. Manufacturers like it because, once you've invested in the molds, it's relatively cheap to manufacture. Don't believe me? Look at the China carbon threads.

Yes, steel and ti are out of fashion. But that's not because they're inferior materials.

BTW, demand is not sagging. It sagged a decade ago when everybody wanted to be like Lance. If anything, ti and steel are making a comeback.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

bradkay said:


> I think that there is room for both types of touring bikes - the tank for those who fear the unknown and the high end classic touring bike made for those who want it. But, alas, the industry isn't going to do it... other than Grant Petersen's offerings.


Mercian, Bob Jackson, Condor, lots of others can build anything you want.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Lotophage said:


> And, I hate to say it, but the mass-produced piece of black plastic is every bit the equal of the hand made steel serotta. It's just as comfortable, responsive, etc. I hate that fact, i wanted the carbon frame to suck but it doesn't


Funny thing, that. My plastic Pinarellos are way better than my custom steel Cinelli.

BTW to the guy who had never rode a titanium bike: I have a ti mountain bike that rides exactly like my 853 Dekerf mountain bike. And I just got rid of a ti mountain bike that rode entirely different, it was insanely stiff to the point of being uncomfortable. Try before you buy.[/QUOTE]


----------



## the engine (Nov 1, 2013)

I've been seriously cycling since 1970 ...

Just retired a 1990 Schwinn LeTour. Still ridable. Just passed it along to a friend, who collects Schwinns.

I ride a Ti 2010 Lynsky R230, I custom built. And, a steel 2011 Raleigh Record Ace (replaced Schwinn), I just bought from a dealer. I did have it customized with components to match my riding style. He has them on the showroom floor, selling at a great deal.

I don't ride carbon, because it is worthless after you break it. If for some reason I should wreck a steel or Ti frame, they can be repaired fairly easily. They'll tell you they can repair carbon, but who should trust a patched up carbon frame. Not me.

BTW, Lynsky has a lifetime warranty on their frames.

My aluminum framed bikes are barely used, one as an around towner, the other for bicycle hill climbs ... on the road I wouldn't ride anything but steel or Ti. Say what you want about ride quality, but for my money, nothing beats a quality steel or Ti frame.


----------



## maximus01 (Aug 8, 2008)

the engine said:


> I don't ride carbon, because it is worthless after you break it. If for some reason I should wreck a steel or Ti frame, they can be repaired fairly easily. They'll tell you they can repair carbon, but who should trust a patched up carbon frame. Not me.


This strikes me as fear-mongering. Some carbon damage cannot be repaired. Some can. Sure, you can't just replace a tube the way you can on a steel frame, but companies like Calfee would not repair CF if it was at all unsafe to do so.


----------



## the engine (Nov 1, 2013)

maximus01 said:


> This strikes me as fear-mongering. Some carbon damage cannot be repaired. Some can. Sure, you can't just replace a tube the way you can on a steel frame, but companies like Calfee would not repair CF if it was at all unsafe to do so.


No fear at all ... no interest in carbon either. I have never had any issues with steel, or Ti. Carbon does not interest me. I gain nothing by riding carbon over steel or Ti. I'm not racing, weight is not a concern ... durability is.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

maximus01 said:


> This strikes me as fear-mongering. Some carbon damage cannot be repaired. Some can. Sure, you can't just replace a tube the way you can on a steel frame, but companies like Calfee would not repair CF if it was at all unsafe to do so.


Funnily it is a lot like steel, when the frame is tube to tube rather than a monocoque. The damaged tube is cut out and a fresh tube bonded in.


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

uhm, I have a custom Calfee Tetra Pro. If I was forced to use one world that describes it, I would say it is durable. I have had the typical crashes with my bike (losing traction in a turn due to sand on the road, for example). I have hit high curbs hard. I have ridden my bike hard. I have had a shifter cable break. I have had a spring in my pedal break. I have worn out three chains and two chain rings. The frame itself has dings in the finish. There is no hidden damage; no possibility of a sudden catastrophic failure. I went with carbon because won't rust and when I went through my decision matrix, carbon or Ti, I chose carbon.


----------



## the engine (Nov 1, 2013)

Insight Homewood said:


> uhm, I have a custom Calfee Tetra Pro. If I was forced to use one world that describes it, I would say it is durable. I have had the typical crashes with my bike (losing traction in a turn due to sand on the road, for example). I have hit high curbs hard. I have ridden my bike hard. I have had a shifter cable break. I have had a spring in my pedal break. I have worn out three chains and two chain rings. The frame itself has dings in the finish. There is no hidden damage; no possibility of a sudden catastrophic failure. I went with carbon because won't rust and when I went through my decision matrix, carbon or Ti, I chose carbon.


I'm sure your choice was perfect for your needs ... I chose Ti.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

My titanium frame is just as popular as it ever was.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> My titanium frame is just as popular as it ever was.


I've just finished my third season on my custom Ti Kish and it's still as popular with me on yesterday's roller ride as the first road ride we had together. I can't imagine a better bike.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Waspinator said:


> do you ever remember hearing the term "rider weight limit" in reference to a frame?


Yes, the steel frame I bought in 1998.




the engine said:


> I don't ride carbon, because it is worthless after you break it. If for some reason I should wreck a steel or Ti frame, they can be repaired fairly easily. They'll tell you they can repair carbon, but who should trust a patched up carbon frame. Not me.


The fallacy with this comparison is that steel frames are not readily repaired either. In fact I have a broken/worthless Lemond Zurich (Reynolds 853) hanging on my basement wall - the rear derailleur hanger was destroyed. High performance steel alloys get messed up when you apply high heat to them, i.e. trying to replace a drop out. 

You also cannot pretend that old steel and alloy frames were problem free. Raleigh defectiums; Back in the day, Cannondales were commonly called Crackandfails. 

I have owned steel, aluminum, and now carbon frames. Each have advantages and disadvantages. You don't spray frame protector in a new carbon frame to prevent rusting. You don't get seatposts seized in carbon frames from galvanic corrosion. 

I like my new carbon frame. The bottom bracket is the stiffest of any bike I have owned, while keeping road feel reminiscent of a steel frame.

But, for people who prefer to ride steel and alloy that is great. I would like to have a nice steel frame again - and I wish I had my 1996 Klein back. Fact is that bikes are cool - and there are a lot of different cool bikes available. The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.


----------



## 768Q (Jun 23, 2012)

I too have a few carbon bikes hanging and decided it would be cool to find a bit of an old school steel bike so started watching CL for a Lemond after reading about them on the net, looked like the Reynolds 853 steel bike they made in the Zurich model would be a good one, a few weeks later I found this '99 Zurich on the local CL and a bonus it was only a few miles from my house. What sealed the deal is the owner had just put a brand new Ultegra 10 speed set up on it so I plan on putting that on the Cervelo S2 I am building and finding a good used period correct Ultegra set up for the Lemond. It is a very good ride and really transfers pedal stroke to the back wheel, oh and picked it up for less than the cost of a new Ultegra set up. ;-) so the bike was pretty much free, sort of.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

crit_boy said:


> But, for people who prefer to ride steel and alloy that is great. I would like to have a nice steel frame again - *and I wish I had my 1996 Klein back*. Fact is that bikes are cool - and there are a lot of different cool bikes available. The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.


You're a good man, CritBoy... I don't care what everybody else says...




Oooh! My ElventyFirst post on this forum! I feel absolutely hobbitish today...


----------



## berndrea (Apr 29, 2010)

I think ti bikes in the northwest are popular as ever. I prefer my titanium custom over any carbon bike I have ever had!


----------



## SMK-SLC (May 3, 2012)

RichardT said:


> Now, the same LBS has on its website the Litespeed T1 and T3 frames  (ti) for $4,000 and $3,000, respectively.


For that money you can have a custom frame made by an American frame builder. Then you'd have a bike built for you and the satisfaction of knowing you gave your hard-earned dollars to a fellow citizen and not to some conglomerate in Asia.


----------



## SMK-SLC (May 3, 2012)

berndrea said:


> I think ti bikes in the northwest are popular as ever. I prefer my titanium custom over any carbon bike I have ever had!


+1 And some extra text because this is too short.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I've been cleared to ride by my cardiologist, and a general surgeon, who will be performing a double hernia on me Laproscopically on December 4th, I'm going to order a brand new Lynskey R230 tomorrow. My surgeon said I could begin riding just before Christmas. Lynskey estimates the bike will be ready on December 10th. With a 35% savings off of the regular price, I'm basically getting a bike that retails for over $6K for just over $4K. I'm going to buy a complete bike with the Ultegra 6800, full carbon fork, and upgraded Mavic Ksyruim Elite wheelset. I'm undecided about the etching or decals, and about the finish options of either the Matte Satin (free), or Industrial Mill finish for $175 more. To save on shipping, I'm probably just going to drive to Chattanooga, about a 5 1/2 hour ride, to pick it up myself.

I looked on Ebay for a Ti bike, but it seems too risky to me.


----------



## joshhan (Jan 9, 2012)

Ti and steel bike here. But I did get a CF bike for the wife.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

For the touring bike, it doesn't matter that the frame is a tank. The REAL action is in the wider tires; mine are 32 mm on my Fuji Touring and i can inflate the tires to 100 psi if i wish for speed or lower the pressure for comfort.

i happen to like aluminum and cheap carbon bikes too, but get more comfort knowing my main bikes are ALL steel........and yes it's real.


----------



## rainxman (Sep 18, 2013)

I love my ti bike, but I still want a carbon bike just for variety.


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

I went from a CF to ti bike this past year because i wanted a bike that would last a lifetime. 

The Good: I went with a lynskey and it rides like a dream. The Bad: It turned out a little bit heavier than my previous carbon (Sette) with the same parts but Ive gotten it down lighter than my cf bike with some lighter parts (15.5lb). Sram red, carbon bars, seatpost, etc. 

I also like knowing that people are generally preferring the BSA threaded bottom brackets these days....But thats not Ti specific of course. 

I'd love to have a R-series Cervelo, a Parlee or a S-Works but Im happy with my decision. I dont agree with the OP that the popularity of Ti and Steel is sagging rather that they were never the first choice for many people in the first place.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

sport7 said:


> For the touring bike, it doesn't matter that the frame is a tank. The REAL action is in the wider tires; mine are 32 mm on my Fuji Touring and i can inflate the tires to 100 psi if i wish for speed or lower the pressure for comfort.
> 
> i happen to like aluminum and cheap carbon bikes too, but get more comfort knowing my main bikes are ALL steel........and yes it's real.


So says the man who thinks that a $600 bike is as good a bike as anyone needs.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

bradkay said:


> So says the man who thinks that a $600 bike is as good a bike as anyone needs.


Go for a demo ride on a Trek 1.2, this IS an entry level bicycle and all you need. Note i did not say Want but Need.

The bike will set you back under $1000 depending on the time of year you buy, etc. Um, common knowledge.

Other entry level bikes with Sora are at different price levels; i enjoy entry level road bikes, especially now with the advances in materials, design and components. 

Nashbar and Bikes Direct has entry level bicycles for much less, but obviously sans the expertise of the LBS. 

This goes for anything else: all we need is an economy car, but we may want a Porshe. Expensive bicycles are Porshes, and yeah fun to ride.

One way to get all your Wants in life is to have much less wants. 

EDIT. Let me add that no one even Needs a bicycle, we were created the most of us with two feet to move with. This is the season of Thanksgiving to God our Creator, let us thank Him for our feet and whatever bicycle we have been blessed with...while we still can. Let all your days be overflowing with gratitude...:thumbsup:


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

sport7 said:


> This goes for anything else: all we need is an economy car, but we may want a Porshe. Expensive bicycles are Porshes, and yeah fun to ride.
> 
> One way to get all your Wants in life is to have much less wants.


The thing about getting what you Want is that it leads to another Want.

Once we get what we want, it's important to enjoy that want, and not worry so much about wanting another.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

sport7 said:


> Go for a demo ride on a Trek 1.2, this IS an entry level bicycle and all you need. Note i did not say Want but Need.
> 
> The bike will set you back under $1000 depending on the time of year you buy, etc. Um, common knowledge.


Why is a $1,000 bike all you need? Sounds extravagant to me. Seems like the GMC Denali priced at $199 is all you need. Anything above that is a "want" and won't make you any faster nor provide any value. So I'd say that you're recommending a bike that is 5X the price of what you actually need.

All you need


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

The Huffy Cranbrook Men's Cruiser Bike is on sale today at Walmart for $94 and its steel!. I am not sure about all this want vs need stuff but I do know I need a better bike than $94 will buy


----------



## KojoAkimbo (Dec 6, 2010)

I think that carbon is the perfect "starter bike" in today's world. After you ride for awhile, you then figure out what you really want.

I rode a carbon bike with "relaxed geometry". Bought it because I was told that it was better for an, uh, Old Guy. Then I was lucky to inherit a ti bike, and on a whim refitted it, and found that I liked it a lot more than my carbon bike. I really like the way it rides. But really, it was more about the geometry than anything else -- the upright position of my carbon bike seemed a lot less efficient, and sitting upright put more pressure on my tail-bone.

Live and learn.

But also (and this is just one data point): my carbon bike fell over when parked, and hit a curb, and now I can't sell the frame because the dent appears to have compromised the structural integrity. I've had my ti bike go over similarly (this time someone else dropped it) with no ill effects.

If I ever upgrade to a frame that accommodates electronic shifting, it'll certainly be ti. I love the ride, and appreciate the durability. And I can afford to have it custom made. So why not?


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

KojoAkimbo said:


> But also (and this is just one data point): my carbon bike fell over when parked, and hit a curb, and now I can't sell the frame because the dent appears to have compromised the structural integrity. I've had my ti bike go over similarly (this time someone else dropped it) with no ill effects.
> 
> If I ever upgrade to a frame that accommodates electronic shifting, it'll certainly be ti. I love the ride, and appreciate the durability. And I can afford to have it custom made. So why not?


hmm, you have gotten me to rethink the Carbon Bike; my steel bicycles fall over many times through the season and i give it no more thought than the falling leaves. Thankfully my bike is of the steel touring type and over built for the rigors of the Real World. 

a blessed wise choice.



DaveWC said:


> Why is a $1,000 bike all you need? Sounds extravagant to me. Seems like the GMC Denali priced at $199 is all you need. Anything above that is a "want" and won't make you any faster nor provide any value. So I'd say that you're recommending a bike that is 5X the price of what you actually need.
> 
> All you need


Well this Denali may be all that YOU need, (i take note of over 500 Amazon reviews mostly satisfied) perhaps my sights are too high but i am quite happy with my Fuji Touring steel bike bought used from Craigslist for a song. My recommendations come from personal experience and the recommendations from an athlete on YouTube previously referred to in another thread. 

:idea:


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

sport7 said:


> Well this Denali may be all that YOU need, (i take note of over 500 Amazon reviews mostly satisfied) perhaps my sights are too high but i am quite happy with my Fuji Touring steel bike bought used from Craigslist for a song. My recommendations come from personal experience and the recommendations from an athlete on YouTube previously referred to in another thread.


Well done. You're starting to see the difficulty in someone determining the needs of another. This Trek 1.2 may be all that YOU need and that's fine. You're wrong in determining that your needs define the needs of others. 

Name the "need" that your Trek 1.2 fulfills that the Denali can't.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I talked to a rep at Lynskey. I'm ordering my bike on Monday. Anyway, I told him what happened to my Bianchi carbon frame cracking. He said he's had numerous cyclists call and order Ti framed bikes with similar stories like mine. He's not sure why they're cracking at a high rate, but it could be mass production. There are only so many plants in Asia that produce CF frames, and they are mass produced, unlike Ti bikes, which are hand-crafted one at a time by a skilled metal worker. Can't wait to order, and can't wait until it gets here!


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

DaveWC said:


> Well done. You're starting to see the difficulty in someone determining the needs of another. This Trek 1.2 may be all that YOU need and that's fine. You're wrong in determining that your needs define the needs of others.
> 
> Name the "need" that your Trek 1.2 fulfills that the Denali can't.


Interesting Dave. Read through the Amazon reviews and you will find that the quality of the components is quite low vs the Trek 1.2, in the end you get a bicycle that needs upgrade components because of failure and probably the smoothness/preciseness of those components are below most riders expectations who actually ride to any great degree.

You have to understand that most bicycles bought in America only travel about 75 miles in their life span, this Denali bicycle probably serves quite well for that purpose. 

From personal experience, i used to ride once or twice a year about 3 miles. The bicycle was then put under a tarp for next year, when the cycle repeated itself. 

The reason i use the Trek as a yard stick is from a recent test ride and the quality of components. Of course what motivates us to ride may be something else entirely, a high end bicycle is like a Porshe sports car and may truly inspire some to get off the couch. 

This leads me to a summation that your health is worth way more than a $500,000 anything, be it a gym membership or ANY athletic activity and diet. :hand:

be blessed.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

"Go for a demo ride on a Trek 1.2, this IS an entry level bicycle and all you need. Note i did not say Want but Need."

I've ridden the 1.2, as well as almost everything in the Trek lineup (I sell them). It is a fine bike if that is your budget, but it doesn't offer the quality of ride to which I have become accustomed. 

I have a 2009 Trek 520 as well as a 1980 720 and the newer model made from thicker walled tubing does not offer the same quality ride as the older bike. I like the taller headtube of the newer bike, but the ride is rougher. 

Others here on this forum have already pointed out the fallacy of your "all you need" argument, as you have admitted. Those of us with experience riding nicer bikes can tell the difference between the entry level bikes and the bikes we ride. I am glad that you are happy with your bike - as you should be - but it wouldn't be good enough for my tastes as I have experienced better and can afford better.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

sport7 said:


> The reason i use the Trek as a yard stick is from a recent test ride and the quality of components.


Seriously? You mean you don't own a Trek 1.2? 

I agree that the Denali has low end components that would not have the smoothness & preciseness to meet most riders' expectations. The same could be said for the Trek 1.2. You're ignoring the obvious in this discussion... your reasons that the Denali doesn't meet your NEEDS are the exact same reasons that someone else could say the Trek 1.2 doesn't meet their NEEDS. No one can say what another person needs, and I have no idea why anyone would try to do so.

btw, there are many complimentary reviews on the Denali...

*"The GMC Denali is for real: a well-designed, durable road bike, with good quality components for an inexpensive mass-produced bicycle. It was exactly what I hoped for and expected. It performs flawlessly for me.

About me as a reviewer: I am not a bike pro or "serious" cyclist or athlete, but rather an older cyclist who has been a casual rider for about a year. I do use a bicycle for commuting transportation and recreation, on average about 100-150 miles per week, so I took this seriously. "*

So again, what needs do you have that this bike won't meet? You could buy 5 of them for the price of the Trek and swap out components that failed.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

bradkay said:


> "Go for a demo ride on a Trek 1.2, this IS an entry level bicycle and all you need. Note i did not say Want but Need."
> 
> I've ridden the 1.2, as well as almost everything in the Trek lineup (I sell them). It is a fine bike if that is your budget, but it doesn't offer the quality of ride to which I have become accustomed.
> 
> ...


You may call my argument a fallacy, but entry level quality truly fills a basic need. For years i rode bicycles that were under entry level quality and so did my friends. When i talk about 'need' it is what is truly needed for anyone to be safe and enjoy the sport.

Of course you may find a high end bicycle more enjoyable, but that level is statistically the 1% who seem to find the funds for those machines.



KojoAkimbo said:


> But also (and this is just one data point): my carbon bike fell over when parked, and hit a curb, and now I can't sell the frame because the dent appears to have compromised the structural integrity. I've had my ti bike go over similarly (this time someone else dropped it) with no ill effects.


As noted in this thread, a man dropped his Carbon bike and dented the thing. (ahem 'high end') Well kinda cools my desire for a Carbon bike (high end) for a bit. 



DaveWC said:


> Seriously? You mean you don't own a Trek 1.2?


Correct. The local Trek shop demos these bikes near our bike trail and i found the machine to be all that i need. In the spring i hope to demo Giant and Specialized. These bikes are more like sport cars compared to my Fuji Touring pickup truck. 

Getting a Denali is more like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, you can get close perhaps with enuf perseverance.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

DaveWC said:


> Seriously? You mean you don't own a Trek 1.2?
> 
> I agree that the Denali has low end components that would not have the smoothness & preciseness to meet most riders' expectations. The same could be said for the Trek 1.2. You're ignoring the obvious in this discussion... your reasons that the Denali doesn't meet your NEEDS are the exact same reasons that someone else could say the Trek 1.2 doesn't meet their NEEDS. No one can say what another person needs, and I have no idea why anyone would try to do so.
> 
> ...


Or i could take all that money and put it as a down payment on a bike like you ride Dave and have NOTHING to ride.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

sport7 said:


> Getting a Denali is more like making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, you can get close perhaps with enuf perseverance.


I'm sure the irony of that statement is lost on you. The guy who gave the glowing review of the Denali for both quality & durability has the same opinion of your "need" for a Trek 1.2 that you have for those that say they need a $5k bike. But what is truly ironic is that you're giving opinions about what other cyclists need on the basis of a test ride on a bike that you don't own. You have zero personal knowledge about the quality & durability of the bike but since you watched a video and tested a bike you're an expert on what you & everyone else needs out of a bicycle. At some point you'll recognize that your opinions of quality & performance in bikes are valid for you & no one else.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

sport7 said:


> Or i could take all that money and put it as a down payment on a bike like you ride Dave and have NOTHING to ride.


Or you could tell me what needs your current bike or the Denali isn't meeting. You're mistakenly thinking that I'm the person telling you that you need to buy a bike like mine. That's simply projection. I'm telling you that your assessment of "needs" is valid for you & you alone. The same goes for my assessment. It works for me only. The point about the Denali is that it's 20% of the cost of the bike you think you need and you can't tell me what need it won't fulfill.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

DaveWC said:


> Or you could tell me what needs your current bike or the Denali isn't meeting. You're mistakenly thinking that I'm the person telling you that you need to buy a bike like mine. That's simply projection. I'm telling you that your assessment of "needs" is valid for you & you alone. The same goes for my assessment. It works for me only. The point about the Denali is that it's 20% of the cost of the bike you think you need and you can't tell me what need it won't fulfill.


Frankly Dave, i don't need a better bicycle, and probably don't 'need' another bike for the rest of my life. THAT is the beauty of quality Ti and Steel bikes. Get one and your 'needs' are done.

Recently i slapped on some 25 mm tires on my Fuji Touring for a faster ride; it became a new bike to me. The 32 mm Fuji tires will go on another set of wheels for a different kind of ride quality. About all i need is a slightly bigger frame and may buy a larger frame bike when the mood suits me.

The Denali probably won't fill that 'need' as i just don't believe that it would. Rather than wasting money on that, there are plenty of improvements the money would be best spent, including gas money to drive South for better weather. :thumbsup:


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

Not to be a buzz kill on the threadjack 'need', but both the Trek 1.2 and GMC Denali are aluminum (the GMC is low Al at that). IMO, if you're debating Al, C, Fe, or Ti, you're not worried about getting what you need, you're trying to get what you want. I plan to buy a steel frame soon, and for specific reasons (none of them 'need'). I want a steel frame for durability, as well as comfort and the ability to modify as I want. Ti would do the same (and a lighter weight) but a Ti frame would cost 3-5x as much (a carbon frame would be 2-3x as much). IMO the biggest inhibitor of Ti and (quality)steel is the cost as has been mentioned before in earlier posts.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

sport7 said:


> Frankly Dave, i don't need a better bicycle, and probably don't 'need' another bike for the rest of my life.


There you go. It took a while to get there but we did get there. The Trek 1.2 represents a want, not a need. The same goes for my Trek, both of them. The same goes for my Specialized S-Works shoes, Garmin 500, Powertap, TruTrainer rollers, Selle Italia SLR Superflow saddle, Boyd wheels and much of my cycling kit, all of which individually cost more than the Denali. Just a bunch of wants that I can easily afford & financially justify. They all add up to allowing me to totally love the 12,000 kms I put on my bike each year.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

DaveWC said:


> There you go. It took a while to get there but we did get there. The Trek 1.2 represents a want, not a need. The same goes for my Trek, both of them. The same goes for my Specialized S-Works shoes, Garmin 500, Powertap, TruTrainer rollers, Selle Italia SLR Superflow saddle, Boyd wheels and much of my cycling kit, all of which individually cost more than the Denali. Just a bunch of wants that I can easily afford & financially justify. They all add up to allowing me to totally love the 12,000 kms I put on my bike each year.


You could almost stretch the Garmin 500 to a need. My local LBS showed me what those things could do in regards to motivation, which is really what a lot of riders need. 

As i get older i see the NEED for exercise and motivation. The price of your bicycle is quite small from the benefits derived from them. And i can now see how a want could easily become a need for those whose health actually is dependent on a more complex system. 

Up north we are frozen in for almost half a year and many suffer from this. i have been thinking lately more about a gym membership mostly for motivational purposes. Harder to get out in the street and run anymore with my gray hair........much harder.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

I knew a man who cycled around the world on a 45lb three speed German bike (back in the 1930s). That department store bike is all you "need", according to your standards. A person can enjoy distance riding on less capable bikes - but you have already decided that you "need" a nicer bike than that. What I don't get is where you come off telling others what level bike fits their "needs". 

I have stated that I prefer the ride of a higher quality bike - whether it is higher quality steel, aluminium, titanium, carbon or unobtanium. The higher quality bike provides a more enjoyable ride - and it is noticeable. I have tens of thousands of miles of loaded touring under my wheels (for a decade I had a target of camping out at least 30 nights a year when I owned no car - I not only made that target I exceeded it most of those years), and feel that I have the experience to notice the quality of the ride on a loaded touring bike. So, Sport7, as I said before I am glad that you are happy with your bike. Just don't tell me what I "need' because you have no idea as to what my "needs" are...

BTW: any bike can be seriously damaged in a fall like that. My guess is that carbon bike came down on the edge of the curb - which could actually cause a significant dent in a steel bike, enough to compromise its ability to withstand the stress for which it was designed.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

bradkay said:


> I knew a man who cycled around the world on a 45lb three speed German bike (back in the 1930s). That department store bike is all you "need", according to your standards. A person can enjoy distance riding on less capable bikes - but you have already decided that you "need" a nicer bike than that. What I don't get is where you come off telling others what level bike fits their "needs".
> 
> BTW: any bike can be seriously damaged in a fall like that. My guess is that carbon bike came down on the edge of the curb - which could actually cause a significant dent in a steel bike, enough to compromise its ability to withstand the stress for which it was designed.


Brad this is all just Opinion, or suggestion. i can't tell you what to buy, but i do have opinions on what a need is or what a good entry level bike may be. There is no way that any of us know your financial situation etc. 

Owning steel bikes all my life, there wasn't much concern about denting etc. So maybe us steel riders are over concerned about such issues of this new to us material.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

And if steel frame riders switched to carbon, would they have to find something else to be smug about?


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

I've been lurking on this thread for a while and decided now is a good time for me to chime in. For a bike, everything is about fit and function. Its not about the material the frame is made of. I've had my bike ride harsh by pumping my tires up above the max rating so they are rock hard. I also have ridden my bike with the tires at minimum inflation and felt a silky smooth ride as a result. People say they went from a (blank material) bike to another (blank material) because it rode "better." Maybe the better is because of its geometry, not the material it is made from.

Is so happens that my body shape is such that I am in the small minority of folks for which a stock frame will just not fit correctly. Every stock bike I have ever ridden, and I have ridden a lot of them, all had their compromises to fit my short torso. My carbon bike is a custom geometry that fits me perfectly. I have learned how important proper bike fit is. I have ridden long distance and found what tiny little adjustments mean to my end of ride pain. 

Why I did not get a ti bike has nothing to do with the material. When I decided I wanted a custom bicycle, it was price, primarily that drove me. For the ENTIRE bike (wheels, seat, headset, derailleur, pedals, stem, tires, etc) it was cheaper to get the custom carbon from one manufacturer than the custom ti from another. I paid a big premium to get a full custom geometry bike, it would have been so in any material.

I know the benefits and trade offs of different materials used in bike frames. Scot Nicol, some years ago, wrote a series of articles called "Metallurgy for Cyclists." It is cost that limits Titanium being a mainstream frame material. It is superior in many characteristics over steel. It costs 5 times the cost of steel. If there was a breakthrough that reduced the cost of producing titanium, there could be a resurgence in ti bikes.

I am sorry to hear that some folks have dropped their bikes and damaged them. I have dropped my bike more than once. The points that hit the ground are not the frame; they are the ends of the handlebar, the outside edges of the pedals and the edges of the wheels. In no way have I found my carbon bike to be fragile. Maybe I have been lucky. Those who know my riding accidents are surprised to see my bike, while scratched and dinged, is in fine shape. I do not think the industry would adopt carbon fiber in the way they have if frames were fragile.

I would, in the future, get a custom steel bike. I know my preferred riding style and would love to have a full-up touring bike.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> And if steel frame riders switched to carbon, would they have to find something else to be smug about?


I guess if he/she was a smug steel bike rider and switched to carbon, he/she would just become a smug carbon bike rider.

A smug/arrogant person will be smug/arrogant no matter if they are walking, riding or driving. Frame material has nothing to do with it.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Waspinator said:


> not so fast there, cowboy!
> 
> Carbon-fiber bikes are lighter because generally they are cheap pieces of sh** where durability has been clearly compromised in order to make them lighter - even the super expensive ones. Seriously, until CF became the norm, back when aluminum or ti were the go-to materials for top-end frames, do you ever remember hearing the term "rider weight limit" in reference to a frame? I don't.
> 
> ...


:frown2:
Wow. Engineering not your strong point, I take it?


----------



## maximus01 (Aug 8, 2008)

768Q said:


> I too have a few carbon bikes hanging and decided it would be cool to find a bit of an old school steel bike so started watching CL for a Lemond after reading about them on the net, looked like the Reynolds 853 steel bike they made in the Zurich model would be a good one, a few weeks later I found this '99 Zurich on the local CL and a bonus it was only a few miles from my house. What sealed the deal is the owner had just put a brand new Ultegra 10 speed set up on it so I plan on putting that on the Cervelo S2 I am building and finding a good used period correct Ultegra set up for the Lemond. It is a very good ride and really transfers pedal stroke to the back wheel, oh and picked it up for less than the cost of a new Ultegra set up. ;-) so the bike was pretty much free, sort of.
> 
> View attachment 289384


That's a nice looking Zurich. I sold mine (blue from 2001) and miss it.


----------



## Duane Behrens (Nov 8, 2013)

Check me on this: I believe the majority of titanium-framed bikes run carbon-fiber forks. Not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with (a) providing an acceptable ride quality while (b) maintaining the light weight that titanium provides over steel.

So then: (a) carbon appears to provide superior compliance over bumps (see above), and; carbon provides, if not superior strength, at least enough strength to be widely used.

And, of course, carbon has been the frame of choice for virtually every competitive, podium-holding racer within the last decade. And these guys don't baby their bikes.

Steel IS more durable. (I'm restoring a 35 year old steelie now and can't wait to ride it) with a ride quality comparable to carbon. Titanium bikes rival carbon in lightness and their frames can also last for generations. And their snob value is unapproachable.

But the overwhelming popularity of carbon is based on much more than any misguided public perception of "cool dejour." Sure, they'll break in a bad crash. Try not to crash.


----------



## Kopsis (Aug 1, 2012)

Duane Behrens said:


> Check me on this: I believe the majority of titanium-framed bikes run carbon-fiber forks. Not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with (a) providing an acceptable ride quality while (b) maintaining the light weight that titanium provides over steel.


The "why" is that the low modulus of elasticity for Ti makes designing a good Ti fork very difficult. Getting the tubing stiff enough without becoming too fragile for the abuse the fork takes is problematic. Steel forks would be seen as a "downgrade" by mainstream Ti buyers, so CF is the logical choice for Ti bike makers.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Duane Behrens said:


> Check me on this: I believe the majority of titanium-framed bikes run carbon-fiber forks. Not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with (a) providing an acceptable ride quality while (b) maintaining the light weight that titanium provides over steel.
> 
> So then: (a) carbon appears to provide superior compliance over bumps (see above), and; carbon provides, if not superior strength, at least enough strength to be widely used.
> 
> ...


You beat me to it! If carbon is such "crap", why does my Lynskey R230 have a Easton carbon fork?


----------



## maximus01 (Aug 8, 2008)

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned stainless steel yet. To me it seems like stainless has many of the benefits of Ti but offers a ride quality more like steel. There are very few mainstream SS offerings but the Salsa Vaya Travel looks awesome as does Bob Brown's custom work (including full SS forks).


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Kopsis said:


> The "why" is that the *low modulus of elasticity* for Ti makes designing a good Ti fork very difficult. Getting the tubing stiff enough without becoming too fragile for the abuse the fork takes is problematic. Steel forks would be seen as a "downgrade" by mainstream Ti buyers, so CF is the logical choice for Ti bike makers.


Ti can be flexy.


----------



## Duane Behrens (Nov 8, 2013)

Kopsis said:


> The "why" is that the low modulus of elasticity for Ti makes designing a good Ti fork very difficult. Getting the tubing stiff enough without becoming too fragile for the abuse the fork takes is problematic. Steel forks would be seen as a "downgrade" by mainstream Ti buyers, so CF is the logical choice for Ti bike makers.


In your second sentence [above], if I insert the word "just" in between "tubing" and "stiff," I guess it makes sense. I then interpret it to mean that reducing titanium's wall thickness to the point that it provides both compliance and light weight would bring it dangerously close to failure on hard bumps.

Your final sentence implies that the primary reason CF forks are used over steel is a mere matter of public perception. I disagree, believing CF is the logical choice for Ti bike makers because it is currently the best compromise between stiffness, compliance and light weight. 

A friend crashed his Litespeed last year. Only the carbon-fiber fork broke. The frame was fine. The front fork was replaced with another carbon-fiber fork. No one questioned the wisdom of that replacement.


----------



## Duane Behrens (Nov 8, 2013)

adjtogo said:


> [snippy] Yes, CF bikes are all made in China, where labor is much cheaper. Ti, on the other hand, is hand crafted, mostly in the USA. Yes, they are more expensive, but I feel they will probably last much longer that CF bikes. I will not buy another CF frame again. I am currently just pedaling a Giant Escape 0 flat bar, aluminum framed bike. It's just an in-betweener bike until I can get enough money together to buy a Ti bike. Lynskey has a sale going on right now that looks pretty enticing. I personally


Your new Ti bike will likely come with a carbon-fiber fork. Front forks tend to take the brunt of force in "T-bone" type crashes, where motorists suddenly pull out or turn in front of you. So, on your "safer" titanium bike, your primary protection in such a crash will be the carbon fiber you fear. 

Try not to think about it.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I'm OK with a CF front fork on a Ti bike.


----------



## maximus01 (Aug 8, 2008)

Duane Behrens said:


> Your new Ti bike will likely come with a carbon-fiber fork. Front forks tend to take the brunt of force in "T-bone" type crashes, where motorists suddenly pull out or turn in front of you. So, on your "safer" titanium bike, your primary protection in such a crash will be the carbon fiber you fear.
> 
> Try not to think about it.


In that type of accident the fork is the least of your concerns. In my personal experience the damage to your body outweighs any concern about the frame material.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

maximus01 said:


> In that type of accident the fork is the least of your concerns. In my personal experience the damage to your body outweighs any concern about the frame material.


Agreed. In any accident the bicycle is the least of the concerns. In fact, there are many parts of a bicycle that can be damaged during a crash -- probably the most common is wheel damage or a cosmetically damaged contact point. But nobody picks a saddle because it can withstand scuffing. 

In my opinion, all this talk of the ability of an alloy frame to withstand ballistic impacts reeks of desperation. It's an ad hoc rationalization. Bicycles are designed to be ridden and it's easier to ride a stiffer/lighter bike. Given the fact that carbon frames can be built at 1/2 the weight of ti frames (and their impact resistance is only marginally different), the argument for ti being accident proof falls away.


----------



## CampyTim (Sep 30, 2013)

I have a '98 Merckx Ti, full Campy Chorus 11.

I need it.

I really, really, need it!


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2013)

I went with a steel frame on my last purchase as I like the look of a classic styled bike.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Local Hero said:


> Agreed. In any accident the bicycle is the least of the concerns.


Apparently you don't ride CX or mountain bikes. Crashes happen. Having frames and components that will survive crashes is important - and most components do.

As far as the larger argument (which seems ridiculous) goes... every frame material makes sense for different people, uses, designs, and costs. Why should I care what anyone rides besides myself?

I can justify the frame materials that I ride. If you can do the same, great. Let's not argue over which is better.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

laffeaux said:


> Apparently you don't ride CX or mountain bikes.


I race both. And I've won state championships in both. But why does that even matter? We're talking about road bikes. 


> Crashes happen. Having frames and components that will survive crashes is important - and most components do.


Again, I think the differences are marginal.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2013)

The flying pigeon is a steel frame bike and it is built in vast numbers. There are millions of people who would say that the flying pidgeon is the best bike in the world. 

About 75million built so far. Steel of course. 

FLYING PIGEON, China's bicycle since 1950 - YouTube




Flying Pigeon on Track - YouTube


----------



## thumper8888 (Apr 7, 2009)

junior1210 said:


> I have no proof and may be wrong, but I'd be inclined to believe that people tend to keep steel and titanium bikes longer. Since they tend to be more durable and lend themselves to repair much easier than carbon or aluminum, there's no reason to discard them after a few years (besides just wanting a different frame). The whole n+1 thing not withstanding, if you have one or two bikes you like that you know will last without any special care (beyond normal wrenching), you wouldn't be looking to replace those bikes every couple of years. No bike shop is gonna keep items in stock that aren't gonna sell but one or two every six months (if they're lucky).


I'm struggling to imagine what type of damage is easier to repair on ti or steel than aluminum.
Certainly your statement isn't broadly true for carbon. I'd venture damage that would total any steel or ti frame can be fixed on carbon, though past a point they are all throw-aways.
As to durability, aluminum is probably the worst of the bunch, with a finite life based on metal fatigue.
Carbon, properly engineered, will outlast steel. Dunno about ti. But I do know that, as a friend once told me when I was talking about Ford 7.3 diesels lasting 600,000 miles or more, who wants to drive a truck with 600,000 miles on it?
If I'm buying a high-end frame, i most assuredly do not want to be still on it 10 years from now.
Frames will be better then, believe it or not.


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

lighthouse54.1 said:


> I went with a steel frame on my last purchase as I like the look of a classic styled bike. Also I wanted a bike that fits rather then an off the rack bike that I would have to stick a crazy long stem on it to get it into specs.
> 
> After much research I found aluminum and steel bikes available for custom fitting. Since all I need is a well fitted bike, with lug work as fine as jewelery and great handling with fender clearance I went with my Lighthouse.
> 
> ...


Uhm, apparently you don't know you can get a full custom carbon fiber bike with the same bits and abilities as your steel custom bike? What makes you think you can't use a carbon fiber bike in the configuration that you use? Check out Calfee Design which is designer that can give you anything you want in carbon fiber, within reasonable engineering possibilities.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

lighthouse54.1 said:


> The flying pigeon is a steel frame bike and it is built in vast numbers. There are millions of people who would say that the flying pidgeon is the best bike in the world.
> 
> About 75million built so far. Steel of course.
> 
> ...


It's the AK-47 of bicycles.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

This is what I ordered yesterday. I saved 35% with their holiday special! There was no way I was going to buy another complete CF bike again after my Infinito cracked and Bianchi didn't want to back up their warranty 100%.

I almost ordered an R230 instead of the R255, but after watching a few Youtube videos on the differences between the two, I chose the R255 for it has a more relaxed geometry which is similar to an Infinito and Giant Defy. The R230 is a little more aggressive like a Giant TCR, and I didn't want that.

2014 R255 with Ultegra 6800 / Sram Force 22 / Dura Ace 9000

Frame Size
M 
Natural Titanium or Painted Finish?
Natural Titanium Finish 
Choose your desired Natural Titanium Finish.
Bright Brushed 
Graphics Options
White Decals 
Fork
Lynskey Pro Carbon 43mm Rake 1-1/18" Straight Carb ...

Fork
Lynskey Pro Carbon 43mm Rake 1-1/18" Straight Carbon Steerer

Upgrade Drive Train and Brakes
Shimano Ultegra 6800 
Build Kit Size
M (42cm Handlebar, 100mm Stem, 172.5mm Crankarms) 
Headset Upgrade
Cane Creek 110 (or ZS) 
Add a Spare Hanger
Replaceable Rear Hanger MISC-DH256 
Wheelset
Mavic Ksyrium Elite 
Saddle and Bar Tape Color
Black 
ISM Saddle Upgrade
Lynskey Saddle (Color chosen above.) 
Would you like us to build this bike?
No 
Oversized Shipping Surcharge
Within the United States (Lower 48 States) and Canada 

Edit $6,220.00 $6,220.00 Remove item
Discount Codes
Enter your coupon code if you have one.
Estimate Shipping and Tax

Enter your destination to get a shipping estimate.

*Country
State/Province
Zip/Postal Code

Please use 00000 if no code is available.

Grand Total Excl. Tax $4,043.00
Grand Total Incl. Tax $4,043.00
Subtotal $6,220.00
Discount -$2,177.00

Checkout with PayPal -OR-

We Accept All Major Credit Cards


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

thumper8888 said:


> If I'm buying a high-end frame, i most assuredly do not want to be still on it 10 years from now.
> Frames will be better then, believe it or not.


I'm still riding a frame that's about 30 years old and am still quite pleased with it. As far as the fact that there are better frames being made now than there were then, that's debatable. Sure, there are faster, lighter and more aerodynamic frames being made but to what end does any of those things add to the ride.

There are tourists, racers, commuters, randonneurs, and all of these cyclists have different needs and wants, and these choices are all personal. What needs be remembered is that it ain't the material, it's the bicycle.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2013)

Insight Homewood said:


> Uhm, apparently you don't know you can get a full custom carbon fiber bike with the same bits and abilities as your steel custom bike? What makes you think you can't use a carbon fiber bike in the configuration that you use? Check out Calfee Design which is designer that can give you anything you want in carbon fiber, within reasonable engineering possibilities.




No I had not heard of calfee before. That sounds like a good option for those that would like to avoid the off the rack bike.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

"There was no way I was going to buy another complete CF bike again after my Infinito cracked and Bianchi didn't want to back up their warranty 100%."

I am curious as to what you mean by Bianchi not wanting to back up their warranty 100%. What were they offering and not offering?


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

Even though the bike frame and bike was less than a year old when my rear seatstay cracked, Bianchi tried to tell me it was my fault, even though the crack was in a place where nothing I could have done would have hit, nor cracked the frame. They gave me two choices. Pay $600 for a new frame, or $500 to get it repaired at Calfee. I opted for the new frame, built the bike back up, and sold it on ebay. I couldn't trust riding it after the first crack. I got the old cracked frame back and sold it on ebay for $550. Yes, I did have pictures of the crack, and someone bought it. 

After that, I was done with Bianchi and CF frames altogether!!

I'm looking forward to getting my Lynskey R255 Ti Bike!! That thing will be bullet-proof!! I've read and heard other horror stories of other people's CF frames cracking. In fact, there was one put on there this morning.



bradkay said:


> "There was no way I was going to buy another complete CF bike again after my Infinito cracked and Bianchi didn't want to back up their warranty 100%."
> 
> I am curious as to what you mean by Bianchi not wanting to back up their warranty 100%. What were they offering and not offering?


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Fair enough - your description, not Bianchi's response.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

bradkay said:


> Fair enough - your description, not Bianchi's response.


Believe me, I was highly upset, knowing that I didn't do anything to damage the bike, and even more upset that Bianchi didn't want to warranty the frame and replace it for free. That's not good business. I kept that bike indoors and babied it. I felt fortunate enough to sell the cracked frame for $550. I had listed it for $49.


----------



## CampyTim (Sep 30, 2013)

adjtogo - nice build!

I'm curious about "want us to build this bike" - "NO"" - does that mean that Lynsky ships the frame and all the parts - you do complete assembly, or do they do a partial build of the drivetrain?


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

They do a partial build. They wanted $199 to assemble it completely, adjust everything, take it for a test ride, and box it up in a big box. My LBS does all that for $60.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

adjtogo said:


> Even though the bike frame and bike was less than a year old when my rear seatstay cracked, Bianchi tried to tell me it was my fault, even though the crack was in a place where nothing I could have done would have hit, nor cracked the frame. They gave me two choices. Pay $600 for a new frame, or $500 to get it repaired at Calfee. I opted for the new frame, built the bike back up, and sold it on ebay. I couldn't trust riding it after the first crack. I got the old cracked frame back and sold it on ebay for $550. Yes, I did have pictures of the crack, and someone bought it.
> 
> After that, I was done with Bianchi and CF frames altogether!!
> 
> I'm looking forward to getting my Lynskey R255 Ti Bike!! That thing will be bullet-proof!! I've read and heard other horror stories of other people's CF frames cracking. In fact, there was one put on there this morning.





adjtogo said:


> Believe me, I was highly upset, knowing that I didn't do anything to damage the bike, and even more upset that Bianchi didn't want to warranty the frame and replace it for free. That's not good business. I kept that bike indoors and babied it. I felt fortunate enough to sell the cracked frame for $550. I had listed it for $49.


You rode a bike for nearly a year and had some trouble. But it sounds like you may have broken even financially or actually come out ahead at the end of it all. 

How did the ebay price for the bike compare to what you originally paid?


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2013)

My son in law had a warranty issue with Bianchi and it was not resolved in a satisfactory manner. But years ago I bought a Specialized Allez that was seriously defective and they refused to warranty it. 

Not sure how Bianchi is doing financially but Specialized has not been bothered one bit from my lifelong boycott.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> You rode a bike for nearly a year and had some trouble. But it sounds like you may have broken even financially or actually come out ahead at the end of it all.
> 
> How did the ebay price for the bike compare to what you originally paid?


I took a risk by spending the extra $600 to get the new frame. When I listed the cracked frame on ebay, I had no idea how much it would sell for, let alone, be able to sell it at all. I was surprised to get $550 for it. 

When I originally bought the bike, it was a complete bike with Ultegra 6700. I paid $3300 for the bike. On Bianchi's website, they were selling the frame alone for $2400. Did I make out O.K? Yes, however, it should have been covered under warranty, not make me pay for something that should have been covered under warranty. 

As I said, I had the bike built back up with the same components and wheelset that came with the bike, then turned around and sold the bike for $2400 on ebay as well. In all, I feel fortunate to get what I did, but it sure turned me off to another CF bike. That was an expensive bike and it should have never cracked like that.

I've heard of many other riders who experienced CF failure and bought Ti bikes.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

adjtogo said:


> but it sure turned me off to another CF bike.


All frames have the ability to fail. So if Ti fails I guess you abandon that for steel. I can see deciding that Bianchi is not a company you want to deal with but if you abandon entire swaths of the products available you could be riding bamboo before long.


----------



## CampyTim (Sep 30, 2013)

DaveWC- yes, anything can fail, including a titanium frame.

That last picture is really scary, full weld failure on the top tube, I'll bet whoever was riding that bike had a really bad day.

I ride a Ti bike, and I'm very happy with it, but I wouldn't hesitate to replace it with a carbon bike if it ever fails or meets with an accident.

Since I've had my Ti bike for over 15 years, that may not be anytime soon, but I wouldn't mind a new Cervelo or Pinarello when the time comes!


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

CampyTim said:


> DaveWC- yes, anything can fail, including a titanium frame.
> 
> That last picture is really scary, full weld failure on the top tube, I'll bet whoever *forgot to take *that bike *off the roof rack before pulling into the garage *had a really bad day.
> 
> ...


Fixed it for you.

Any material can break. Any material can be noodly. Any material can be stiff. Can we stop arguing frame material now? Tires actually make a difference in ride quality. I just got my first pair of Vittoria 25 mm tires, and wow is all I can say. Smooooooooth!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

The last picture looks like the impact was below the head tube. A roof shot would break it in the other direction.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> The last picture looks like the impact was below the head tube. A roof shot would break it in the other direction.


Yep, that last photo is clearly a frontal impact where the TT/HT weld failed during the impact. Most likely it was a collision with a car, though it could have been with anything solid - but the first part of the bike in that photo to hit something was the front wheel. The point is, that weld was a total failure. A good weld would have held to the point of tearing some of the frame material but that weld separated cleanly. 

One time riding my Kestrel MXZ (mountain bike) I missed a hairpin and t-boned a tree stump so hard that the read derailleur cable popped completely out of the cable guides. All I had to do was to loosen the cable anchor bolt and re-adjust the cable. If the frame had been any type of alloy I am sure that the down tube would have looked like the one in that last photo. Conclusion: not all carbon is flimsy. Yes, some top of the line racing bikes are made with very thin carbon frames - but any bikes in that weight range will be susceptible to damage no matter what the material. 

Honestly I have no horse in this race: I have four steel bikes, three carbon ones and two aluminum bikes. Of those I regularly ride one steel, the two aluminum (Kleins) and one of the carbons.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I agree, any type of material can break, but after my experience with the Infinito, I just decided to go in a different direction after reading a lot of posts here, getting opinions of a lot of other riders, and talking to a lot of manufacturers of Ti bikes. Nothing wrong with going in a different direction, is there? As long as you're happy with your choice of material and you're riding happy on it, that's what counts the most. For now, I'm just happy that I got a 35% discount on the complete bike that made the cost, with upgrades, very competitive with a CF bike of the same class. Can't wait to get on it and ride. 

As far as tires go, I agree! It makes a big difference too. I usually use Conti Gatorskins 700 x 25, but may try something else when the bike arrives. I need puncture proof tires around here in Florida.


----------



## Duane Behrens (Nov 8, 2013)

DaveWC said:


> All frames have the ability to fail. So if Ti fails I guess you abandon that for steel. I can see deciding that Bianchi is not a company you want to deal with but if you abandon entire swaths of the products available you could be riding bamboo before long.


Thanks for that. Love the documentation you provided. I've put app. 100 miles per week on my [Specialized] carbon frame for the last 4 years, and have been involved in at least 2 incidents where the frame went down hard onto asphalt or concrete, once after the derailleur hanger let loose and sent the entire RD through the rear spokes. Another time I went down hard when another rider braked in front of me. Handlebar and grips both bent beyond repair. In both cases, the bike was examined and repaired - with zero damage to the frame. Moreover, the bike shop I purchased it from has consistently assured me that if the frame fails for ANY reason, they'll replace it at no cost to me. And that warranty is backed up by the very few who have utilized it. 

I went to toast a slice of bread yesterday, and noticed a bit of mold on one of the slices. Must I now give up eating bread?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Duane Behrens said:


> I went to toast a slice of bread yesterday, and noticed a bit of mold on one of the slices. Must I now give up eating bread?


Bread is prone to mold. I once left the bread out and some mold developed (a day *prior* to the expiration date) and the store gave me two options: return half a loaf and get a half store credit or just cut off that edge of the slice and keep eating. Well, I took the store credit and donated the remaining loaf to a food pantry for a tax write off. There are horror stories about people accidentally sitting on their loafs and the loafs failing. On my baking forum, there are countless threads on bread failing every week. Not me. I switched to biscotti and never looked back. It just has a feel that you can't get from plain bread.


----------



## CampyTim (Sep 30, 2013)

Please don't modify other forum member's quotations - it's bad form, and disrespectful to the other member, and misleading to other forum readers.

Thanks,

CampyTim


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

CampyTim said:


> Please don't modify other forum member's quotations - it's bad form, and disrespectful to the other member, and misleading to other forum readers.


That's a fairly typical practice. And he did put the changes in *bold *as well as indicating that he had "fixed that for you". 

In your case it would be better if you quoted the person you're referring to when you make a post like you just did as it isn't obvious who you are talking about.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

junior1210 said:


> I have no proof and may be wrong, but I'd be inclined to believe that people tend to keep steel and titanium bikes longer. Since they tend to be more durable and lend themselves to repair much easier than carbon or aluminum, there's no reason to discard them after a few years (besides just wanting a different frame). The whole n+1 thing not withstanding, if you have one or two bikes you like that you know will last without any special care (beyond normal wrenching), you wouldn't be looking to replace those bikes every couple of years. No bike shop is gonna keep items in stock that aren't gonna sell but one or two every six months (if they're lucky).


I own a Ti bike, hence my handle, but when I was shopping around I remember going into a Boulder CO bike shop and when the owner heard I was looking for Ti, he said "if I sell you Ti, I will never see you again."


----------



## CampyTim (Sep 30, 2013)

DaveWC - I hit "reply" directly under the message - I thought that it would order my reply under the message I was replying to, I guess it doesn't do that.

As to altering other member's quotes, it may be common, but it shouldn't be.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

lighthouse54.1 said:


> My son in law had a warranty issue with Bianchi and it was not resolved in a satisfactory manner. But years ago I bought a Specialized Allez that was seriously defective and they refused to warranty it.
> 
> Not sure how Bianchi is doing financially but Specialized has not been bothered one bit from my lifelong boycott.


One more reason to buy a Specialized. Some stand behind their warranty 100%. Some stand aside and don't want to warranty their bikes.


----------



## CoLiKe20 (Jan 30, 2006)

one of the reason why I ride almost Ti is the belief that these frames don't fail catastrophically.
Looking at these pictures, I'm kinda scared...


----------



## CoLiKe20 (Jan 30, 2006)

CampyTim said:


> DaveWC - I hit "reply" directly under the message - I thought that it would order my reply under the message I was replying to, I guess it doesn't do that.
> 
> As to altering other member's quotes, it may be common, but it shouldn't be.


happens all the time (to many of us). fair warning was given in bold and "fixed it for you". Effective and humorous way to make a point. 
we take it in stride. Unless poster is annoyed, no reason why you should be


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

CampyTim said:


> As to altering other member's quotes, it may be common, but it shouldn't be.


Ok then. I did more than simply say it's a common practice. I tried to explain to you why it's not bad form, and is not disrespectful to you, and why no one would be mislead into thinking that your quote was unaltered. But if you're determined to be put out go for it.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

adjtogo said:


> One more reason to buy a Specialized. Some stand behind their warranty 100%. Some stand aside and don't want to warranty their bikes.


thanks for the tip.

Or you may want to consider bicycles that probably will never fail if you are just a recreational rider...

the steel touring bicycle.

and for 99% of us, probably the only bicycle you will need anyway. my Fuji Touring bicycle was chosen because the legendary toughness of these machines. no wimpy light weight bicycles spoken here, NO WAY!!!

Other bikes in the running would be the Legendary Trek Touring bike, Nashbar Touring bicycle and perhaps the Bikes Direct Motobecane and Windsor toughy touring bikes. 

The King of all these bikes is probably the Surly Long Haul Trucker, take a peak under the hood of this beefy ride and get wowed by The frame’s tubing which is thicker-walled and larger-diameter than standard road and sport-touring frames. 

That should give pause to any silly carbon framed thoughts buzzing in one's head. 

Surly goes on and over the top, and may i quote their website: Like all our frames, it’s made of CroMoly steel. You’ll probably never need to have the frame repaired, but if you do you’re more likely to find someone who can weld steel than someone who can weld titanium or aluminum. Repair carbon fiber in the middle of Mongolia? Good luck with that.

Who needs aluminum, carbon, titanium when CroMoly steel is the Real Deal! :thumbsup:


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

CoLiKe20 said:


> one of the reason why I ride almost Ti is the belief that these frames don't fail catastrophically.
> Looking at these pictures, I'm kinda scared...


As said so many times...any material can break. 
The skill of the designer and builder is far more important than the material.
And matching the frame to the intended purpose is just as important. A friend of mine got a Merlin Extralight frame because he was a weight weenie and the thing broke right away. But a heavy duty Sandvik-made Kona Score would last forever.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> As said so many times...any material can break.
> The skill of the designer and builder is far more important than the material.
> And matching the frame to the intended purpose is just as important. A friend of mine got a Merlin Extralight frame because he was a weight weenie and the thing broke right away. But a heavy duty Sandvik-made Kona Score would last forever.


thanks for confirming my suspicions about weight weenie bikes.


----------



## Duane Behrens (Nov 8, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Bread is prone to mold. I once left the bread out and some mold developed (a day *prior* to the expiration date) and the store gave me two options: return half a loaf and get a half store credit or just cut off that edge of the slice and keep eating. Well, I took the store credit and donated the remaining loaf to a food pantry for a tax write off. There are horror stories about people accidentally sitting on their loafs and the loafs failing. On my baking forum, there are countless threads on bread failing every week. Not me. I switched to biscotti and never looked back. It just has a feel that you can't get from plain bread.


Made my day. But only after I read it the second time. Thanks.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

adjtogo said:


> One more reason to buy a Specialized. Some stand behind their warranty 100%. Some stand aside and don't want to warranty their bikes.



Possibly you misread my post. I boycott Specialized because my brand new Specialized Allez (1982 model) was seriously defective and Specialized refused to warranty it. So I boycott Specialized products. I have purchased many bicycles over the years for my kids, wife and myself. None of them are Specialized.

My theory is one we have all heard. 

Fool me once, "shame on you", fool me twice "shame on me". 


Anyway the garage is full of bikes that belong to all of us. None are Specialized. I think there are 14 bikes in the garage at the moment. 2 of them are my bikes. A Cannondale and a Lighthouse.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

lighthouse54.1 said:


> Possibly you misread my post. I boycott Specialized because my brand new Specialized Allez (1982 model) was seriously defective and Specialized refused to warranty it. So I boycott Specialized products. I have purchased many bicycles over the years for my kids, wife and myself. None of them are Specialized.
> 
> My theory is one we have all heard.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... that 1982 Specialized was a CroMoly steel frame. I guess that people are going to have to go to a straight gauge hi-tensile steel frame if they don't want to risk a broken fame...


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

sport7 said:


> thanks for the tip.
> 
> Or you may want to consider bicycles that probably will never fail if you are just a recreational rider...
> 
> ...



Last January I gave my youngest son my Surly Long Haul Trucker when I took delivery of my Lighthouse.

The Truck is a solid bike, Totally capable of a world tour. It's comfortable to ride, works well. To heavy and slow for fast paced club rides, and a tough bike to lift up to a roof rack. But the bike is in the garage and my youngest son rides it sometimes. He has been using it as his college bike but currently the bike is in the garage. I rode it to work last week as my commuter had a flat tire. It was fun to roll on it again.

I probably do not agree with that last statement however. I think that aluminum, titanium, carbon and steel all have there place in the bike world. Different materials and bike styles for different purposes and budgets.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I avoided Specialized for a long time because I just did not like their image and didn't think their bikes were worthwhile. I also didn't like that certain Specialized dealers only carried Specialized bikes and products. A few years ago while looking for a new bike which is a rare event for me I almost bought a Cannondale but the salesperson was a jerk and pissed me off. I had a friend that worked at the Specialized dealer down the road so I went there and they were about to close and it was getting dark but they put me on a Tarmac SL3 with a light and told me take it for a test ride. A few days later I took it for another test ride for a few hours and ended up buying it. I also have Specialized shoes, gloves, leg warmers and water bottles because they are the best products I could find. Specialized makes great bikes and products and I have not heard many complaints about their warranty. I am sorry you had the problem with the Alllez but my experience was just the opposite. My wife has a Specialized Ruby and it is perfect for her.




lighthouse54.1 said:


> Possibly you misread my post. I boycott Specialized because my brand new Specialized Allez (1982 model) was seriously defective and Specialized refused to warranty it. So I boycott Specialized products. I have purchased many bicycles over the years for my kids, wife and myself. None of them are Specialized.
> 
> My theory is one we have all heard.
> 
> ...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

sport7 said:


> thanks for the tip.
> 
> Or you may want to consider bicycles that probably will never fail if you are just a recreational rider...
> 
> ...


Good thing to remember in Mongolia. 

I don’t care.

I don’t care what type of riding you do.
I don’t care if you chose dirt or pavement.
I don’t care what bike you chose to ride.
I don’t care what you think of my bike.
I don’t care how much your bike cost.
I don’t care how much your bike weighs.
I don’t care how fat your tires are.
I don’t care how fast you can ride.
I don’t care how far you’ve ridden.
I don’t care about what your rims are made out of.
I don’t care what your frame is made out of.
I don’t care if you commute on your bike.
I don’t care if you race your bike.
I don’t care if you run gears, single speed or fixed gear.
I don’t care if you run suspension or rigid.
I don’t care about who you know.
I don’t care where you’ve been.
I don’t care who you work for.
I don’t care who’ve you worked for.
I don’t care about the races you’ve won.
I don’t care about the causes you’ve rode for.
I don’t care about the components you’ve chosen.
I don’t care if your run hydraulic or cable.
I don’t care how you wrapped your handlebar tape.
I don’t care if you chose wool or Lycra.
I don’t care if you wear a helmet or a hat.
I don’t care about your chainring tattoo.
I don’t care about your fancy sunglasses.
I don’t care if your wear a heart rate monitor.
I don’t care if you use a computer or not.
I don’t care if your “old school”.
I don’t care about your messenger bag.
I don’t care if you ride with a U-Lock stuffed in your belt.
I don’t care how many years you’ve been riding.
I don’t care who you’ve ridden for.
I don’t care who you’ve ridden with.
I don’t care about the teams you’ve wrenched for.

Now please, can't we all just get along?


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Good thing to remember in Mongolia.
> 
> I don’t care.
> 
> ...


Get along? LOL..............uh, WE ARE!

What? Yep, just debating the issues. If you just want someone to agree with you, then become a Dictator.

Problem solved. :thumbsup:


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

lighthouse54.1 said:


> My son in law had a warranty issue with Bianchi and it was not resolved in a satisfactory manner. But years ago I bought a Specialized Allez that was seriously defective and they refused to warranty it.
> 
> Not sure how Bianchi is doing financially but Specialized has not been bothered one bit from my lifelong boycott.


I doubt if Bianchi was bothered by my "Boycott" of them neither. But, by not honoring the warranty, I sure as hell would not buy another, nor recommend anyone buying their bikes. Now, maybe if it was a classic Bianchi, then yes, but not the new CF ones. They are all made in the same Asian factories as all the others are. I used to have the opinion that the "No Name" Chinese CF frames were junk at one time too, however, my opinion is much different now. I think they are all in the same category. I think that all CF frames are made in the same four factories in Asia. They are all mass produced by machines. Machines can produce good products, but can fail and make mistakes too. And I think those mass produced, CF frames are failing more often because they are mass producing a ton of them now. It's not like the good old days when aluminum and steel bikes were hand crafted right here in the USA, like Schwinn used to be in Chicago, ILL. Now, CF bikes are the norm and produced out of country. At least I'll have a bike hand crafted right here in the USA...with foreign parts...

Yes, any frame material can have defects and break. So, what I say, is pick your material of choice and be happy with it. Some like CF, while others like Aluminum, Steel, or Ti. There's nothing wrong with trying something different. That's the good thing of having Freedom of Choice. We are not all molded into one fine line. If you're happy with your frame choice, good for you. I'm happy with my decision to order a new Ti bike instead of buying an off the shelf CF bike. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Now please, can't we all just get along?


Probably not.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

jnbrown said:


> I avoided Specialized for a long time because I just did not like their image and didn't think their bikes were worthwhile. I also didn't like that certain Specialized dealers only carried Specialized bikes and products. A few years ago while looking for a new bike which is a rare event for me I almost bought a Cannondale but the salesperson was a jerk and pissed me off. I had a friend that worked at the Specialized dealer down the road so I went there and they were about to close and it was getting dark but they put me on a Tarmac SL3 with a light and told me take it for a test ride. A few days later I took it for another test ride for a few hours and ended up buying it. I also have Specialized shoes, gloves, leg warmers and water bottles because they are the best products I could find. Specialized makes great bikes and products and I have not heard many complaints about their warranty. I am sorry you had the problem with the Alllez but my experience was just the opposite. My wife has a Specialized Ruby and it is perfect for her.





I did take the frame to a custom frame shop and had it repaired and paid the cost myself. The fork apparently had one blade longer then the other and the repair fixed it up as well as he could.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

His Bianchi problems were with a Brava. The wheels were so cheaply made that they would not hold up to actual cycling. Bianchi eventually replaced the wheel after months of communication and the new wheel failed on the first ride. He just bought a new set of wheels after that and has been rolling along since then. He does like the Brava but being a young and very strong rider he wants a lighter and faster bike when he can afford one.


----------



## Duane Behrens (Nov 8, 2013)

jnbrown said:


> I avoided Specialized for a long time because I just did not like their image and didn't think their bikes were worthwhile. I also didn't like that certain Specialized dealers only carried Specialized bikes and products. A few years ago while looking for a new bike which is a rare event for me I almost bought a Cannondale but the salesperson was a jerk and pissed me off. I had a friend that worked at the Specialized dealer down the road so I went there and they were about to close and it was getting dark but they put me on a Tarmac SL3 with a light and told me take it for a test ride. A few days later I took it for another test ride for a few hours and ended up buying it. I also have Specialized shoes, gloves, leg warmers and water bottles because they are the best products I could find. Specialized makes great bikes and products and I have not heard many complaints about their warranty. I am sorry you had the problem with the Alllez but my experience was just the opposite. My wife has a Specialized Ruby and it is perfect for her.


That's also our experience. I test rode a few bikes and brands before stopping in to look at our LBS' fare. They were a licensed Specialized dealer. I found the carbon Tarmac to be the best compromise for someone who, like me, prefers to stand on the pedals on long ascents. It all just felt right. My wife, who rarely stands on the hills, ended up with the more comfy Roubaix, after a happy year with her alum Dulce. We settled in on these bikes 4 years ago and have put thousands of miles on them here in southern California, where the riding is all year 'round. So thanks.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

adjtogo said:


> It's not like the good old days when aluminum and steel bikes were hand crafted right here in the USA, like Schwinn used to be in Chicago, ILL.


While I don't completely disagree with your overall post, there are a couple of things where I think you're off base with the statement above.

- Schwinn was the KING of cheap mass-produced machine-built frames in the US. Sure the Paramount frames were hand-made and very nice, but the vast majority of Schwinn frames were heavy electro-forged frames that were not particularly nice. And the nice Schwinns are still available via Waterford.

- The "good old days" in the US are right now. Historically the US has not had many frame builders or component manufacturers - at least not since the invention of the automobile. Up until the 1970's bike boom bikes were toys for kids (in the US). Europe and Asia had a much longer history with building bikes. Frame building has been growing in the US and right now you'll find more builders than anytime since the 1890s. These are the "good old days" of US bicycle frame manufacture! (Trek and Cannondale did make more bikes by volume in the US in the 1980s and 1990s, but the total number of builders today is more than in the past.)


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

lighthouse54.1 said:


> His Bianchi problems were with a Brava. The wheels were so cheaply made that they would not hold up to actual cycling. Bianchi eventually replaced the wheel after months of communication and the new wheel failed on the first ride. He just bought a new set of wheels after that and has been rolling along since then. He does like the Brava but being a young and very strong rider he wants a lighter and faster bike when he can afford one.


On many bikes the stock wheels will not stand up to the use that some riders give them. The manufacturer is only obligated to replace them (if the issue is truly a warranty and not misuse) with the equivalent wheels. If a person chose to buy a bike with wheels that do not support his riding style or physique, the manufacturer is not required to upgrade them - that is the rider's responsibility. 

Machine built wheels are the standard on stock bikes and will continue to be the standard in the modern business climate. They do not wear as well as a good set of hand built wheels, but they keep the selling price of the bike down. Sometimes you have to accept the limitations of the product that you buy and run with it...


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2013)

bradkay said:


> On many bikes the stock wheels will not stand up to the use that some riders give them. The manufacturer is only obligated to replace them (if the issue is truly a warranty and not misuse) with the equivalent wheels. If a person chose to buy a bike with wheels that do not support his riding style or physique, the manufacturer is not required to upgrade them - that is the rider's responsibility.
> 
> Machine built wheels are the standard on stock bikes and will continue to be the standard in the modern business climate. They do not wear as well as a good set of hand built wheels, but they keep the selling price of the bike down. Sometimes you have to accept the limitations of the product that you buy and run with it...



I guess there are different ways to look at it. The wheels lacked enough quality to withstand a normal bicycle ride. I was with him when he purchased that bike and he was concerned about the wheels and the Salemen said the wheels are made of superior components and they would withstand the rigors of many years of cycling.

He is normal sized and skinny like many cyclist. All he needed was a bicycle wheel that could roll down the road. The Bianchi Brava did not offer that and Bianchi and the shop was insensitive to that goal and they showed poor customer service and not a polite word was spoken to him during the entire thing. Basically Bianchi is out. 

Low quality bike and poor customer service means no more business from us. That's the deal. A consumer can always do his talking with where they spend their money.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> Now please, can't we all just get along?


I don't care if we all just get along.


----------



## adipe12 (Oct 29, 2013)

Duane Behrens said:


> Your new Ti bike will likely come with a carbon-fiber fork. Front forks tend to take the brunt of force in "T-bone" type crashes, where motorists suddenly pull out or turn in front of you. So, on your "safer" titanium bike, your primary protection in such a crash will be the carbon fiber you fear.
> 
> Try not to think about it.


the risk of damaging the fork in a crash is very, very lower than having your other part of the frame...

for example i produced some dents in the scapin eos 7 i bought for cheap. but i don't care too much about those dents. when i got the bike for some 500$/400E it was already dented a bit on the frame but i had no worries for the fork because it's very improbable to have it cracked, very little risk, there are very few possible scenarios where the fork could be hit as to initiate a crack.

bottom line: carbon forks rock, especially round profile tubes. torsional stiffness is great. woundup forks simply rock.

this combination i had the luck to buy for cheap has never been proven wrong for the non-competitional use of bikes. it's just that they can't produce in large piles with low prices. the crabon fribe reinforced plastic is just bling for the people that worry too much about grams and don't take riding seriously. bikes rather just being some assets to them to feel proud about.

this would be the best way to go for most people if only they would be more rational about it, less worried about their image etc.:

1. a torsionally crabon fribe reinforced plastic fork. the benefit to a proper fork with a proper design is that it has *exceptional torsional rigidity*, especially on high loads. i need the fork to better handle *lower amplitude loads* BUT *with high frequency*. i don't need the direction (steering) to feel uncertain. a higher risk of accidents means less comfort, either for making me adapt to the limitations (traffic etc) or the actual event occuring. also, having a lower weight fork certainly permits putting on a wider rim and tire combination with a nice profile to it. a steel fork would rather suit long rides, like full days spent on the bike. i have that on another bike that's reserved for loaded applications and nasty weather.
and i think the best carbon fork should have not only thick, round legs, but also a carbon steerer (but with a bit of alloy inside it) to also give better fore and aft flex at high vibration.

2. good steel alloy, correct tube design and professional welding on those thin wall tubes. the only problem to it would be the high production and replacement cost. thin walled but oversized down tubes make me really happy so i take care to avoid hitting them. but if some cracks would initiate and propagate then there'd be no risk of having a crash because of that. that's one of the reason to choose steel for the main frame. steel tubes flexes nicer on higher amplitude loads. the other is that you can see the cracks grow if you would have the bad luck of serious denting accidents.
it's just that the main frame should be as torsionally and laterally stiff as possible. with the exception of the rear triangle which only needs the torsional aspect of stiffness maxed up. some lateral flex is better than none. it improves the traction and also the stability.

the best design for a high speed bike frame would be having this points:
- oversized but thin wall down tube, butted on the interior side;
- oval profile (wide) top tube, butted on the exterior (visible) side;
- long seat tube and butted on the exterior side as well;
- curved, plain gauge seatstays;
- butted chainstay with an oval profile on the narrow side (lower width but higher height), with a section design as to make them more round on the interior.

people generalize as to have "two legs good four legs bad" judgements. steel is heavy, cheaper and it rusts, aluminum is more costly but lighter, carbon has low life expectancy regardless of the component and is the lightest.

wrong. crabon fribe is certainly lighter but i'm lighter and faster on a steel frame because real world conditions do not suit carbon frames.

and another thing, titanium alloy is just bling for a select audience. from what i've heard it has low ultimate tensile and yield strength compared to the best steel available. it's market cost is very high. i'd rather have reynolds 953 for example over titanium. the fatigue strength of 953 is at least double of what the best titanium work is ever produced, not only is the durability (UTS and yield) greater for 953. *it's only because of working close to yield that titanium is so comfortable*. that means you have the 'best' thing a lot of money can buy.


----------



## adipe12 (Oct 29, 2013)

crit_boy said:


> Yes, the steel frame I bought in 1998.
> 
> I have a broken/worthless Lemond Zurich (Reynolds 853) hanging on my basement wall - the rear derailleur hanger was destroyed. High performance steel alloys get messed up when you apply high heat to them, i.e. trying to replace a drop out.
> 
> ...


the best way to fix that reynold 853 would be to have it singlespeed. it certainly would rock. try it. i've scrapped the unnecesary parts on my scapin eos 7 and it wasn't because the hanger was bad. it's just nicer to go with cadence ranging from 60 to 120, improving the technique and minimizing the maintenence time and costs of riding. you get a lower weight bike too. you can certainly afford having a 550g brooks saddle and bigger tires without making the bike grow too heavy.

i like to have some *lateral flex* from the bottom bracket to the rear hub under pedalling torque. that's the chainstays on a steel frame working to provide better traction, minimizing skids that happen on the road even if you don't notice them. it's torsional flex that you want absent from any part of the bike. that kind of lateral flex in the chainstays also provides better comfort. it's just that it needs to be in the correct amount and be more manifested under pedalling torque.

that's why people say a certain frame has a 'magic ride'. they don't have access to the science behind it. or rather they don't care. unfortunately that's anecdotical and leads to bad marketing. gossip.


----------



## adipe12 (Oct 29, 2013)

RichardT said:


> A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that alters behavior and therefore becomes true. I'm suggesting that bike makers and sellers have predicted that there's no more than a niche market for high-quality ti and steel road bikes, and through their own behavior in recent years -- i.e. not even attempting to sell them in a mass-market way -- they've caused that prediction to become true. Not to get off on a tangent, but I'm reminded of vinyl records. Record labels practically stopped making them after CDs came out, but the continued demand for vinyl has caused record labels to re-think this strategy, and I now see new turntables being sold again as well.
> 
> By the way, I am referring to bikes with racing geometry that would be comparable, in terms of geometry and components, to my current line-up of carbon bikes (Giant TCR Advanced and Litespeed Archon C1). If there are any such bikes for sale at a bike shop near me -- I've been to 4 or 5 in my area -- I haven't seen any sitting on the floor that I could ogle, much less test ride. One of the posters here suggested I find a Bianchi dealer. I looked that their website, and it looks like they don't even make a steel bike that has components comparable to my carbon bikes (Dura-Ace and SRAM Force).


more oftenly a self fulfilling prophecy is a prediction someone is interested in having become true. if it wasn't for that the prophecy would not have been 'made'. some do not come true because the voodoo does not work. in those cases that kind of lesser 'prophet' pretends he never spoken it or rather we have not understood it's meaning. we got it wrong, it DID come true, just that some divine intelligence made it expressed in such words as to have the meaning hidden so that we don't say we made it come true.

when divine beings are not involved and the term is borrowed into our modern language we still have a form of worship, it's just the divine beings are replaced with athletes, celebrities etc. people worship them a little less than as thought of being descended from the sky.

through these celebrities and athletes predictions are made. the companies who invest into a line of production want the prophecy come true. so, they sponsor those celebrities, athletes etc. so that we 'see' the future. the future is 'shown' to us. and we become part of the plan, zealots.

if the products would not need that kind of advertising then there'd be none and people would buy the right stuff.

so, when some marketing guys messes up the fabric of society the competition thinks they should get into the same practice as well.

it's just that the laws are NOT right. you should not get away with this kind of profiting by making people more and more stupid and less inclined to appreciate being educated into scientific and rational stuff.

'unfortunately' some dude predicted the roman empire will come to a close once and for all. guess what, the USA was founded with much inspiration regarding the roman empire model. it needs to finally be replaced sometime in the future with a different paradigm. not that this replacement will happen overnight, it's just the self adoring christianity culture will collapse. it's not just the USA but it plays a leading part on this self distruction. christmas and santa and cute little rudolf and so on. little toys to have so that the world knows we have not sinned or if we did those are forgiven and santa loves us.

people made some idols, the idols haven't created themselves, right? so, almost everyone is a little egomaniac, even if it isn't too apparent.

look at hetchins work, he produced some very high tech for his time. he wasn't an egomaniac. if he were then he would have come out with only buzzwords, only to sell illusions. the main two reasons to explain how people started buying MANY of his bikes, as he started business, were this:
1. the shop was next to a musical records shop he was in partnership with;
2. the bikes had beautiful lugs and the vibrant chainstays and seatstays appealed to the eye.

well, *the functional role of the 'vibrant' stays was there too*. not just the 'buzzword'. unfortunately the people would not best appreciate that but would rather appreciate having stuff to show off to other people. it's "me, me, me. i am somebody, i am accomplished, i should be accepted". it's unaccomplished individuals who need to have this sense of security as to avoid the pain of being rejected some day for having their true nature known by their peers. deep down inside they know their nature and they hate it, it's just that they don't realize it on the conscious level.

so, yes, the self fulfilling prophecy that people will turn more and more idiotic is accomplished by the idiots by their behaviour as to deny that prospect and the part that they are 'part of the plan'.

in order to avoid the consciusly painful realization that they don't suit some other purpose for the betterment of the society other than to produce the downfall... they become more and more impressionable and more and more gullible.

as long as the laws doesn't punish anyone that profits from people being stupid and on top of that PROMOTES stupidiy and the religion of self importance... we'll not come of the grave.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

holy crap, tl;dr. I quit after "oftenly".


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

DaveWC said:


> holy crap, tl;dr. I quit after "oftenly".


It's all nonsense anyway. Probably made sense when he was high.

Those posters are why the mod provides an "ignore" button.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I agree that there are now more hand crafted bike builders in the USA, but that's it. Hand crafted, and their material of choice is usually steel or titanium. I don't know of any manufacturer in the USA that mass produces any bikes of any material, like they do with CF and cheap, department store brand bikes in China and Asia.

The Schwinns I was talking about were the ones you mentioned, the Paramount frames. They were very nice bikes!!

I still say, enjoy the bike of your material of choice. What's good for one, may not be good for the other.



laffeaux said:


> While I don't completely disagree with your overall post, there are a couple of things where I think you're off base with the statement above.
> 
> - Schwinn was the KING of cheap mass-produced machine-built frames in the US. Sure the Paramount frames were hand-made and very nice, but the vast majority of Schwinn frames were heavy electro-forged frames that were not particularly nice. And the nice Schwinns are still available via Waterford.
> 
> - The "good old days" in the US are right now. Historically the US has not had many frame builders or component manufacturers - at least not since the invention of the automobile. Up until the 1970's bike boom bikes were toys for kids (in the US). Europe and Asia had a much longer history with building bikes. Frame building has been growing in the US and right now you'll find more builders than anytime since the 1890s. These are the "good old days" of US bicycle frame manufacture! (Trek and Cannondale did make more bikes by volume in the US in the 1980s and 1990s, but the total number of builders today is more than in the past.)


----------



## Burnette (Mar 25, 2013)

*Ain't Nuthin' Saggin' Here*








"Get On Your Bikes And Ride"


----------



## rebel1916 (Aug 4, 2007)

bradkay said:


> Grant Petersen, retro-grouch extraordinaire, makes touring bikes from lightweight tubing but appears to be the only one these days to do so. .


I'm guessing this got skipped over because of the whole TL;DR issue, but are you saying Grant makes light bikes? Ay Dios mio, what do you consider heavy?


Oh, and Grant doesn't make anything. He specs frames from other builders. In places like China. And maybe Wisconsin.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

rebel1916 said:


> I'm guessing this got skipped over because of the whole TL;DR issue, but are you saying Grant makes light bikes? Ay Dios mio, what do you consider heavy?
> 
> 
> Oh, and Grant doesn't make anything. He specs frames from other builders. In places like China. And maybe Wisconsin.


According to Road Bike Rider, a fully built up Atlantis weighs in at around 23-24 lbs (lighter than my '09 520, but not as light as my 1980 version). And yes, you are right - he sells bikes that he has made elsewhere, but that is nitpicking. 

My 1980 touring bike weighed 22 lbs without the racks and was made with Reynolds 531 tubing so it was only marginally heavier than racing bike of the day. I do not expect a touring bike to weigh only 18 lbs, but I would like to see one at 22 lbs again.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

DaveWC said:


> All frames have the ability to fail. So if Ti fails I guess you abandon that for steel. I can see deciding that Bianchi is not a company you want to deal with but if you abandon entire swaths of the products available you could be riding bamboo before long.


whaaa????\

Impossible!


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I should also mention that I had a 2011 Giant Defy Advanced 1 that had a cracked front fork and a cracked seatpost...both made out of CF. The fork was recalled by Giant. The recall of the fork was the same exact day I was to take delivery, but couldn't. I had to wait two months before Giant sent a new fork. The seat post was creaking and making weird noises. They checked everything. It came down to an advisory that the seat post was too long, so they cut it. Same results. Then they thought it was the post clamp. Not it. Then they checked the seat clamps. Not it. The noise persisted. Changed out the post and found a small crack in it. After having a Bianchi Infinito with a cracked rear seatstay and a Giant with CF issues, I decided to go Ti. One strike, yes, two strikes, ouch!! But not three!!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

adjtogo said:


> I should also mention that I had a 2011 Giant Defy Advanced 1 that had a cracked front fork and a cracked seatpost...both made out of CF. The fork was recalled by Giant. The recall of the fork was the same exact day I was to take delivery, but couldn't. I had to wait two months before Giant sent a new fork. The seat post was creaking and making weird noises. They checked everything. It came down to an advisory that the seat post was too long, so they cut it. Same results. Then they thought it was the post clamp. Not it. Then they checked the seat clamps. Not it. The noise persisted. Changed out the post and found a small crack in it. After having a Bianchi Infinito with a cracked rear seatstay and a Giant with CF issues, I decided to go Ti. One strike, yes, two strikes, ouch!! But not three!!


Oh my God, how much do you weigh?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Oh my God, how much do you weigh?


So am I to believe that the only way that a plastic, I mean carbon, bike will fail is under a fat cyclist?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

velodog said:


> So am I to believe that the only way that a plastic, I mean carbon, bike will fail is under a fat cyclist?


Do you mean plastic or carbon?


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Oh my God, how much do you weigh?


I hardly think 180 lbs is overweight for a 5'9" cyclist. Giant determined the CF parts were faulty from the get-go, that's why they recalled the fork. The seatpost, it was determined, to be made 2" too long, which they thought was causing the problem. The LBS mech cut it, but the noise still kept coming back. Again, a defect in manufacturing, and nothing to do with my weight.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Do you mean plastic or carbon?


Yeah.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Do you mean plastic or carbon?


Crabon.


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

Defect of the seatpost or possibly it had been cranked down too tight at one time.


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Dec 9, 2013)

IMHO, there is nothing mystical about steel (or any other material, FWIW). There is no doubt that steel (especially modern alloys and tubing) can be used to make a nice frame, but I've heard some pretty fantastic (and ridiculous) claims made by the "steel is real" crowd over the years. Anymore, I kinda switch off when I people start throwing out ambiguous, subjective terms like "harsh" or "complaint" to justify their particular opinion of why X is better than Y.

There is no doubt that metal is an easier medium in which to work for custom builders, especially compared to CF with all it's molds, resins, chemicals, etc. 

But, a quality, custom-made framed CrMo or Ti frame isn't nicer than a mass-produced AL or CF frame simply by virtue of the fact that it's made of steel or titanium - it's nicer because it's an hand-made, small batch artisan product. 

(BTW - first post on RBR; hi)


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

adjtogo said:


> I hardly think 180 lbs is overweight for a 5'9" cyclist.


For a climber it's obscenely fat. 



> Giant determined the CF parts were faulty from the get-go, that's why they recalled the fork. The seatpost, it was determined, to be made 2" too long, which they thought was causing the problem. The LBS mech cut it, but the noise still kept coming back. Again, a defect in manufacturing, and nothing to do with my weight.


It sounds like carbon just isn't for you.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

PoisonDartFrog said:


> There is no doubt that metal is an easier medium in which to work for custom builders, especially compared to CF with all it's molds, resins, chemicals, etc


The price of admission to the steel framebuilder club is a fraction of the cost of mold for a carbon frame component.

The level of technical knowledge required is an even smaller fraction. High school metal shop vs CAD/CAM and FEA design. 

That's why the kids on Velocipede Salon are so scared. Go there, you can smell the fear. They can rant about the shorelines on their lugs all they want...but inside they know Taiwan can make better frames for less money. And the number of people who want a bike like Ronnie de Witte used in the 74 Giro keeps getting smaller.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Insight Homewood said:


> Defect of the seatpost or possibly it had been cranked down too tight at one time.


Cue the guys who don't need a torque wrench because they can feel the difference between 4Nm and 5Nm.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

"I hardly think 180 lbs is overweight for a 5'9" cyclist."

I'm 5'9"... in my twenties I came in between 116 and 127 lbs and was a very good climber. Now I am 55 years old and am overweight as a cyclist at 154 lbs - and don't rocket up the climbs anymore.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

bradkay said:


> "I hardly think 180 lbs is overweight for a 5'9" cyclist."
> 
> I'm 5'9"... in my twenties I came in between 116 and 127 lbs and was a very good climber. Now I am 55 years old and am overweight as a cyclist at 154 lbs - and don't rocket up the climbs anymore.


I'm 5'9" and currently pushing 190# on the scale. Even when I was young, the best I've ever managed was around 160#. 170 is a healthy weight for me. I think 160-170 is about average for our height.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

According to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's website a person at 5'9" is overweight at 176 lbs. 

Compared to racing cyclists, we are overweight above 135 lbs at our height... at 118 lbs I was found to be at 4.5% bodyfat. Athletes are supposed to fall under 12%, preferably under 8%. I am afraid to have that measured these days.


----------



## expatbrit (Oct 16, 2013)

God. I'm screwed. At 190lbs, I'm a rail! Mind you, I'm 6'7. I'll never be a climber!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm just shy of 275lbs. 


But it's right for my height.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

Not a climber. I live in Florida. I pedal for fitness and fun. I don't race neither. Averaage rides between 20-35, with rides 50+ miles once or twice a week. At 180, I'm not all skin and bones. I used to play football, so my upper torso is larger than some skinny toothpick riders.


----------



## Spewayafee (Dec 10, 2013)

I ride a Ti 2010 Lynsky R230, I custom built. And, a steel 2011 Raleigh Record Ace (replaced Schwinn), I just bought from a dealer. I did have it customized with components to match my riding style. He has them on the showroom floor, selling at a great deal.
I don't ride carbon, because it is worthless after you break it. If for some reason I should wreck a steel or Ti frame, they can be repaired fairly easily. They'll tell you they can repair carbon, but who should trust a patched up carbon frame. Not me.
BTW, Lynsky has a lifetime warranty on their frames.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Spewayafee said:


> They'll tell you they can repair carbon, but who should trust a patched up carbon frame. Not me.


That's your call. 

When I first got serious about racing I bought a used, patched frame and rode it like I stole it. I won field sprints in crits, descended like a bat out of hell in road races, climbed to some of the highest peaks in California (and descended with confidence), and even took it from Monterey to Pismo Beach in a single day. I learned how to bunny hop up curbs and do wheelies on that bike...all that on a patched frame and I never died, not even once.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

And a bent steel frame can be very unstable at speeds. I remember when my bike was destroyed by a car in 1992, the driver's insurance agent wanted to have it repaired (as opposed to paying for a replacement). The shop mechanic explained that it would never be stable at any kind of speed after that crash. I asked him if his company wanted to assume the liability for that. They bought me a new bike.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

bradkay said:


> And a bent steel frame can be very unstable at speeds. I remember when my bike was destroyed by a car in 1992, the driver's insurance agent wanted to have it repaired (as opposed to paying for a replacement). The shop mechanic explained that it would never be stable at any kind of speed after that crash. I asked him if his company wanted to assume the liability for that. They bought me a new bike.


Claims adjusters often make absurd arguments. 

Despite my personal risk taking and arguments here, if I negotiate with them about a carbon bike involved in an accident, I always fight for a total replacement. Possible latent defects and all that.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

The important thing is not to let them get away with those arguments.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

RichardT said:


> So here's what I'm wondering: If ti and steel really offer a ride quality that a lot of cyclists would enjoy (despite the fact that they're a bit heavier), why don't local bike shops carry at least a few high-quality ti and steel bikes? The obvious answer is that it's a niche market. But if shops don't put them on the floor to sell where you can touch them and take them out for a test ride, and maybe pick one up on clearance, then the market for these bikes will always be niche. Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy, or am I missing something?


My guess is it's because titanium frames can't be mass produced. They require time and skilled craftsmanship to produce, and the raw materials aren't cheap. These factors cut into profit margins. Carbon technology is to the point now where frames can be spun out by the thousands, cheaply and reliably in Taiwan and China.

Another factor is that carbon frames are like banners for graphics and a lot of people eat that up.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

RichardT said:


> So here's what I'm wondering: If ti and steel really offer a ride quality that a lot of cyclists would enjoy (despite the fact that they're a bit heavier), why don't local bike shops carry at least a few high-quality ti and steel bikes?


I think this says more about the shop than the material. The shop that I visit the most has several Lynsky Ti frames for sale, and several steel bikes available. I visited a shop in Seattle over Thanksgiving that sold zero carbon bikes, but had lots of steel and a few Ti bikes as well. Shops carry what the owner wishes to sell, or thinks will sell locally.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Spewayafee said:


> a steel or Ti frame, they can be repaired fairly easily


Steel kinda, titanium nope.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Steel kinda, titanium nope.


I live in a pretty big city and don't know of anybody off hand who could repair a steel frame. I think due to the scarcity of such places I would think the cost isn't cheap. I do know if I had a carbon frame that needed repairing there are several well known companies such as Calfee that can repair it and do a very good job. I have numerous friends that have Ti frames and they all have broken and had to be retired or sent back to Litespeed for repair so I don't why people think Ti is indestructible.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Spewayafee said:


> I don't ride carbon, because it is worthless after you break it. If for some reason I should wreck a steel or Ti frame, they can be repaired fairly easily. They'll tell you they can repair carbon, but who should trust a patched up carbon frame. Not me.


I ride steel. I ride steel because I enjoy the ride and I prefer the aesthetic. That's where my tastes lie and I understand that they ain't everybodies cup of tea.

But what I don't understand is the idea of riding a frame for its materials ease of repair. I crashed plenty of times, both my fault and the fault of others, and there's always the chance of another accident. They ain't pleasant, but they happen. Life, she's funny like that.
But when I buy a new frame, I'm looking forward to riding it, I'm sure not thinking about how easy it'll be to get this frame repaired if I crash it. 

I've had steel tweeked, needing nothing but a realignment and I've also had steel completely destroyed. I'm sure the same thing goes for the other mediums.
I think that it's more important to buy what you want to ride, not what's easy to fix. Deal with the fixin' when that time comes, not before it happens.

As far as trusting a repaired carbon frame, that depends on who did the repair. Same thing goes for steel, just 'cause someone can light a torch, don't mean they can replace a frame tube or two.

It boils down to who did the repair, not what kind of material was repaired.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

jnbrown said:


> I live in a pretty big city and don't know of anybody off hand who could repair a steel frame.


Most shops can do basic repairs - remove dents, straighten hangers, re-space drop outs, etc. Loads of guys with a torch can braze - add/remove/replace cable stops, water bosses, brake bosses, etc. Major repairs take more skill, but there are hundreds of builders that are capable of making repairs. Emergency repairs that require a welder can be made my many thousands of guys trained to use a welding torch.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> The Giant Escape has a carbon fiber fork, as do the majority of steel, ti and aluminum bikes. From what I have seen, it appears that it is mostly the lower-end factory bikes which come with aluminum or steel forks.


And that's a shame. A nice steel fork with a lugged crown works so well. Steel absorbs shocks as well or better than CF but doesn't give up road feel and lively response. Steel forks match more precisely the feel of the steel frame, deflect to absorb shock and be comfortable, but with the springy response unique to steel. Well brazed steel forks don't break. They bend in a crash and can be pulled back into shape most of the time. The better frame builders who've been around for a few years usually have at least one steel frame that has a steel fork. Pegoretti's Lugino comes to mind. It has a beautiful chrome lugged fork crown. Richard Sachs also makes bikes with steel forks.

QBP offers some good steel. A Kona won't break the bank. That Cinelli replica of their famous all round road bike from the late 70s would also be a winner. That frame is the perfection of what steel is all about. If I didn't already have two nice steel bikes, I'd buy one of those Cinellis in a heartbeat.


----------



## evs (Feb 18, 2004)

"if you are just a recreational rider..."


Why can't I have a light fast bike just because I'm a rec rider. I don't tour. I do some long cruises and some times a like to put the hammer down and feal the accelaration of my thinn walled steel bike. It would be less enjoyable if I had an anchor to ride. There are different levels of durability. I'm not towing anything or hanging anything on my frame so that is a big difference. I guess it depends on what kind of durability one is looking for


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

While there is a "feel," difference on different frame materials it has been my experience that changing wheels makes a bigger change in "feel," than changing frame materials. By wheel I mean wheel and tire. I find a very noticeable change in feel of my bike by just allowing lower inflation on my tires vs pumping them up to max. High enough to avoid pinch flats in aggressive riding. The thing is, we all love what we have and can dismiss other materials used in frames for not having the same, "feel," but being totally honest I enjoy riding a bike. The material it is made out of is secondary. The weight factor is high on my list. Components and wheels are high as well. What I forget is that I have a saddle I will never change from, a Brooks B-17 that fits me perfectly. I would hate the bike I love it I had a lousy saddle on it.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*steel folks*

Not sure about the comment that steel folks come on low end bikes. All 4 of my steel bikes (Coppi, Marin, Torelli, Colnago) have steel folks. When I bought the Colnago Master this summer they were surprised when I went with the steel fork. My response was why would I want to cheapen a great steel bike with a plastic fork!


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

edit.

on second thought, maybe i will post this on the weekend. don't have much time for this tonight. 

weekends we may get a Better mix of responses. Snow is coming too, and that could mean extra time for us midwest guys. 

Check out the 999 deal Nashbar has on their entry level Carbon, anyone think it is good??????

edit again, here is the url for the thing: Nashbar Carbon Road Bike - Save on Fuji GT and Nashbar Road Bikes and More

The way some of you talk, it is just a waste of cash, or is it? Perhaps another case of 'shut up and ride' ?


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Dec 9, 2013)

We heard all of this when alu replaced steel. Someday a new material will replace carbon, and then we will get hear all over again why steel is better than that, too. We will hear vague ambiguous buzzwords like "plush" and "feel" and "lively" and "compliant" to describe an anecdotal experience and for why steel is better than, well, everything. (Although I have yet to hear a rational explanation of how a bike can be both "compliant" and "stiff" at the same time.)

Not saying steel bikes aren't nice. But if steel were truly superior in every way imaginable, OEMs would still be making steel bikes for the high end market. Why aren't they?


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*Answer: weight*



PoisonDartFrog said:


> But if steel were truly superior in every way imaginable, OEMs would still be making steel bikes for the high end market. Why aren't they?


because steel loses out in one consumer-critical area...weight. That is why Alu replaced steel and carbon replaced Alu. Most riders don't care about ride quality, they just want the lightest bike in their price range. I think that is shortsighted, but that is what drives the market. Personally a couple of pounds makes little difference to this 50yo 190lb rider. fortunately, as evidenced by the number of successful high-end custom steel builders there is still a small but viable market for good steel bikes


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

PoisonDartFrog said:


> We heard all of this when alu replaced steel. Someday a new material will replace carbon, and then we will get hear all over again why steel is better than that, too. We will hear vague ambiguous buzzwords like "plush" and "feel" and "lively" and "compliant" to describe an anecdotal experience and for why steel is better than, well, everything. (Although I have yet to hear a rational explanation of how a bike can be both "compliant" and "stiff" at the same time.)
> 
> Not saying steel bikes aren't nice. But if steel were truly superior in every way imaginable, OEMs would still be making steel bikes for the high end market. Why aren't they?


OEMs are making the newest bestest thing that will have the buyers scrambling to spend their money. It's a concept that works. 
Replace steel with aluminum, it's lighter. Replace aluminum with titanium, it lasts forever. Replace titanium with carbon, it's stiffer and lighter. And when we see your new material that's better than carbon, people will buy that too.

But the thing is, with all these improvements in materials and design there are still many cyclists that *Just Plain Prefer Steel*. Ain't nobody invented a magic carpet(well, maybe an old Cinelli) and it ain't likely that one'll ever be invented, so just ride what you prefer and don't worry about what the other guy is riding.

I prefer steel, does that make me a dinosaur? Maybe.

Is the cyclist who is always looking for the newest bestest frame material a puppy chasing it's tail? Maybe.

All I know is that I've found what I like and see no reason to change. Don't matter what's best, what matters is to get out and ride.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

DaveG said:


> Most riders don't care about ride quality, they just want the lightest bike in their price range.


I don't think that's true at all. Every time someone asks for advice on a given bike, or bikes, they are told to ride the bikes & choose the one that fits them & has the best quality ride. Rarely has anyone given advice to buy the lightest bike.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*can't agree*



DaveWC said:


> I don't think that's true at all. Every time someone asks for advice on a given bike, or bikes, they are told to ride the bikes & choose the one that fits them & has the best quality ride. Rarely has anyone given advice to buy the lightest bike.


Dave, I can't agree with that. Look at the advertising for bikes and frames. The weight of the frame/fork is always prominent. Whenever anyone buys a new bike here the first thing asked is "how much does it weigh". Plus someone in marketing has convinced us that stiffer is better, so we are conditioned to want a hard riding frame


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Dec 9, 2013)

DaveG said:


> because steel loses out in one consumer-critical area...weight. That is why Alu replaced steel and carbon replaced Alu. Most riders don't care about ride quality, they just want the lightest bike in their price range. I think that is shortsighted, but that is what drives the market. Personally a couple of pounds makes little difference to this 50yo 190lb rider. fortunately, as evidenced by the number of successful high-end custom steel builders there is still a small but viable market for good steel bikes


I disagree that most riders are concerned primarily with weight - in my experience, they focus on components, fit, and comfort. (Edit: this is to say nothing of the popularity of carbon frames in the MTB world, which is a community far less concerned with sheer weight savings than the road world).

The reality is that tires, air pressure, saddle, wheels, seat post, bars/grips, geometry, etc make a much bigger impact to bike feel than frame material.

I do agree that some high end custom boutique steel frame builders enjoy success, but one could argue that a lot of those sales are driven by ego/prestige purchases. When you drop that kind of cash on a frame, you want to believe you made the "best" choice, and you want others to think so, too. Which brings me to my next hot sports opinion:

I think a lot of the touted benefits of steel frames are a placebo effect. You feel a difference because you think you should or have been told that you should. If someone could conduct a true double-blind study, I seriously doubt there would many people who could accurately or consistently tell what kind of frame they were riding, all else being equal.

I think its funny when people call carbon bikes plastic. This is like saying steel bikes are made of iron.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

DaveG said:


> Dave, I can't agree with that. Look at the advertising for bikes and frames. The weight of the frame/fork is always prominent. Whenever anyone buys a new bike here the first thing asked is "how much does it weigh". Plus someone in marketing has convinced us that stiffer is better, so we are conditioned to want a hard riding frame


You didn't say that the marketing dept is focused on weight, you said riders don't care about ride quality, just weight. People may ask the weight of a new bike purchased by John Doe, but my point is that from what I've seen, when John Doe chooses a bike, the choice comes down to ride quality. Given two bikes that feel the same and cost the same, I'd choose the better components. If those components are also lighter that's an additional benefit, not the primary consideration.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

PoisonDartFrog said:


> We heard all of this when alu replaced steel. Someday a new material will replace carbon, and then we will get hear all over again why steel is better than that, too. We will hear vague ambiguous buzzwords like "plush" and "feel" and "lively" and "compliant" to describe an anecdotal experience and for why steel is better than, well, everything. (Although I have yet to hear a rational explanation of how a bike can be both "compliant" and "stiff" at the same time.)
> 
> Not saying steel bikes aren't nice. But if steel were truly superior in every way imaginable, OEMs would still be making steel bikes for the high end market. Why aren't they?


You can get a "stiff" and "compliant" ride by the way that you manipulate the frame material. Look at a late 90s or early 2000s Klein made with the Gradient/ZR9000 tubing. The tubing is not butted in the traditional sense - the walls gradually taper so as to not concentrate the stress at a single point, allowing an even thinner walled tube (the alloy itself has a higher fatigue strength than standard 6000 or 7000 series aluminum, making it safe to go so thin). If you look at the downtube you will see that it starts out round at the HT junction and ovalizes horizontally towards the bottom bracket. This allows for vertical movement but resists side-to-side flex from hammering on the pedals. Most carbon endurance bikes are using a similar downtube setup these days. IF you combine that with a compact frame where more seatpost is exposed (allowing it to flex back) or the Domane's decoupled seat tube, you get an even more vertically compliant frame - without sacrificing bottom bracket stiffness.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

PoisonDartFrog said:


> I do agree that some high end custom boutique steel frame builders enjoy success, but one could argue that a lot of those sales are driven by ego/prestige purchases. When you drop that kind of cash on a frame, you want to believe you made the "best" choice, and you want others to think so, too. Which brings me to my next hot sports opinion:
> 
> I think a lot of the touted benefits of steel frames are a placebo effect. You feel a difference because you think you should or have been told that you should. If someone could conduct a true double-blind study, I seriously doubt there would many people who could accurately or consistently tell what kind of frame they were riding, all else being equal.


So what you're saying here is that, in reality, a carbon bike is no stiffer than a steel bike and that buying a high end carbon bike is, in reality, ego/prestige driven. And that enjoying the touted benefits of a carbon frame is nothing but a placebo effect.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

I think I can agree that there is a placebo affect with bikes although its certainly not limited to steel. Any time someone spends huge money on a bike they will find ways to rationalize the cost benefits. Not sure I understand the ego purchase part since high-end hand built steel frames made by the best artisan builders still cost less than many carbon frames made in China in a mold

As to a "blind test", many, many years ago the magazine Road Bike Action did a test where they had Mondinico build 7 different steel frames out of 7 different tubesets. The test riders did not know which were which. The riders did claim to feel differences and they had clear preferences. What was interesting is that the most expensive bikes were not the ones they liked, Several preferred the inexpensive Cromor frame over what was then the top of the line Columbus tubeset.


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

It still gets down to the fact that many, many engineers have looked hard at different materials and found carbon fiber construction methods applied to bicycle frames make a frame that has more pros than cons vs steel. It is not saying, "better." Pros are those things for which the material has clear benefits. The cons will scare the daylights out of lawyers and bean counters. I think that engineers are marketing people, are, in aggregate, smart people. The consensus was to use carbon fiber. 

Of the tens of thousands of carbon fiber bikes out now, in searching for frame failures, I have not found there are many out there. This is one argument, however by the steel crowd. Long before carbon fiber became popular I remember looking at bicycle failures and it seemed that steel bikes can break as well.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

The "proof in the pudding" to me has been the transition every spring from my winter steel bike to my compact framed Klein (I just bought my Domane at the end of May, so I haven't experienced the transition with it yet): every spring when I go out on macadam (tarmac, chipseal, whatever you want to call the road surface) roads I find myself stopping to check to see if my rear tire is going flat. On the Klein I was not feeling the same amount of road vibration that I was feeling on the steel bike. Yes, that is the opposite of the old "aluminum beats you to death" song - but that is a myth when it comes to high end bikes. A straight gauge aluminum frame will beat you to death, just as will a straight gauge steel frame.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

G


bradkay said:


> You can get a "stiff" and "compliant" ride by the way that you manipulate the frame material. Look at a late 90s or early 2000s Klein made with the Gradient/ZR9000 tubing. The tubing is not butted in the traditional sense - the walls gradually taper so as to not concentrate the stress at a single point, allowing an even thinner walled tube (the alloy itself has a higher fatigue strength than standard 6000 or 7000 series aluminum, making it safe to go so thin). If you look at the downtube you will see that it starts out round at the HT junction and ovalizes horizontally towards the bottom bracket. This allows for vertical movement but resists side-to-side flex from hammering on the pedals. Most carbon endurance bikes are using a similar downtube setup these days. IF you combine that with a compact frame where more seatpost is exposed (allowing it to flex back) or the Domane's decoupled seat tube, you get an even more vertically compliant frame - without sacrificing bottom bracket stiffness.


Good explanation of how a frame can be "stiff and compliant" at the same time. :thumbsup:

Not sure using the seatpost as a shock absorber is a great idea, though. They're considerably thicker gauge than the butted frame tubes, so they wouldn't attenuate the shock waves very well, they'd just faithfully transfer the shock waves up to the saddle. I didn't like my friend's compact frame for that reason. It was fat tubed aluminum with a carbon fork. Neither the fork nor long seatpost could overcome the harshness of the frame, and yet I felt I was giving up road feel from the cushy fork, and control whacking up a climb trying to stay in one place on that massive seatpost.

My old steel bikes with steel forks, one inch tubing butted down to paper thin midsection, give a good sense of road feel and are responsive, but never beat me up.

I also feel like the shorter seatpost transfers efforts from the saddle more efficiently than the long seat post on my friend's bike and others I've test ridden. That's why top of the line builders have been extending the seat tube all the way to the saddle clamp. Eliminating that clunky seatpost not only shaves off weight, but improves power transfer, same as a big stiff BB shell and thicker chain stays.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

My good friend prefers his steel Bianchi over his carbon Colnago. He says that more than anything it's the fit. My teammate prefers his Trek Madone 7.9 over his CrossCheck -- he says the acceleration of a bike that weighs 5lbs less makes a big difference. 

I ride a chromoly MTB but when it came time to race the state championship, I crushed it on a borrowed S-Works Stumpjumper. There was too much climbing to lug around that steel beast. 

Sure, steel vs carbon vs ti comes down to personal preference, but I think it's BS to claim that steel is somehow better for an unmeasurable "feel" - that feeling is confirmation bias at best.


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Dec 9, 2013)

bradkay said:


> You can get a "stiff" and "compliant" ride by the way that you manipulate the frame material. Look at a late 90s or early 2000s Klein made with the Gradient/ZR9000 tubing. The tubing is not butted in the traditional sense - the walls gradually taper so as to not concentrate the stress at a single point, allowing an even thinner walled tube (the alloy itself has a higher fatigue strength than standard 6000 or 7000 series aluminum, making it safe to go so thin). If you look at the downtube you will see that it starts out round at the HT junction and ovalizes horizontally towards the bottom bracket. This allows for vertical movement but resists side-to-side flex from hammering on the pedals. Most carbon endurance bikes are using a similar downtube setup these days. IF you combine that with a compact frame where more seatpost is exposed (allowing it to flex back) or the Domane's decoupled seat tube, you get an even more vertically compliant frame - without sacrificing bottom bracket stiffness.


Interesting explanation, but since a bike frame is a truss structure, and the downtube is under tension while being ridden, I don't see how it can absorb road shocks, regardless of how cleverly it is designed. Unless it possesses some sort of elastic qualities? In other words, it can stretch and snap back by more than a trivial amount. Typically not a beneficial quality in a down tube.

Any damping in a truss is via flex of the members under compression. The top tube, seat tube, and seat stays flex a tiny amount under an impulse, or bump, and the tensioned members - down tube and chain stays - return the truss to its original "steady state" shape after the impulse is absorbed.

This is why you don't see fully suspended MTBs with shocks in the down tube.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> The price of admission to the steel framebuilder club is a fraction of the cost of mold for a carbon frame component.
> 
> The level of technical knowledge required is an even smaller fraction. High school metal shop vs CAD/CAM and FEA design.
> 
> That's why the kids on Velocipede Salon are so scared. Go there, you can smell the fear. They can rant about the shorelines on their lugs all they want...but inside they know Taiwan can make better frames for less money. And the number of people who want a bike like Ronnie de Witte used in the 74 Giro keeps getting smaller.


:lol: Artists argue about the fine points of lugs because they're creatively involved in building the qualities into their works of art that will make riders smile.

Heck, its all good. The big manufacturers forge ahead in their carbon fiber technology and build lightweight, laterally stiff and vertically compliant bikes and they're just fine. The new randonneur mounts with the slightly more laid back ride are all day event bikes for sure. 

But I have yet to see a true long distance touring bike that isn't steel. Mainly because steel is strong, resilient and responsive, really comfortable, especially loaded up with baggage , and if there's a crash, the frame can be bent and brazed back into shape by, as you say, relatively low tech expertise.

The market's big enough to handle off the rack carbon, or custom dialed in and fitted frames made by artisan/craftsmen motivated by a humble love of bikes who could really care less about becoming the next mass producer. After 10 years of trying to perfect a carbon frame that will match all the ride qualities of top of the line steel, now these mass builders are turning to custom geometries and paint, what the steel frame builders have been doing for years. With bikes, as with golf clubs, guns, or footwear, its nice to have enough choice to find one that fits one's personality! :yesnod:
,


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Maybe I'm a wuss but if I crashed hard enough to bend (or break) my frame, I would think the tour would be over because of the injuries to my body. 

Is that a common thing, crashing hard enough to bend a steel frame without sustaining bodily injury?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> Maybe I'm a wuss but if I crashed hard enough to bend (or break) my frame, I would think the tour would be over because of the injuries to my body.
> 
> Is that a common thing, crashing hard enough to bend a steel frame without sustaining bodily injury?


IME the poor body takes all the heat in a crash and the bike does just fine. I smacked another cyclist once, knocking the front rim slightly out of control but bending the fork back and putting some ripples on the top tube right behind the head tube lug. The frame builder put the frame in a jig and aligned the tubes. The bike is still my all purpose/commuter, 25 years later with no issues.

Good racing bikes, whether steel or carbon, are pretty crashworthy. Riders are always falling off of them in races, pick them up and ride off. Wheels pretzel, handle bars get bent, seats and pedals scraped, but frames are rather well protected from impact damage.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> IME the poor body takes all the heat in a crash and the bike does just fine. I smacked another cyclist once, knocking the front rim slightly out of control but bending the fork back and putting some ripples on the top tube right behind the head tube lug. The frame builder put the frame in a jig and aligned the tubes. The bike is still my all purpose/commuter, 25 years later with no issues.
> 
> Good racing bikes, whether steel or carbon, are pretty crashworthy. Riders are always falling off of them in races, pick them up and ride off. Wheels pretzel, handle bars get bent, seats and pedals scraped, but frames are rather well protected from impact damage.


i have been riding for almost 50 years and haven't been able to break any frames.


----------



## rebel1916 (Aug 4, 2007)

View attachment 289856


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Local Hero said:


> Is that a common thing, crashing hard enough to bend a steel frame without sustaining bodily injury?


I've not broken a frame but have been on rides where others have broken frames in relatively minor crashes - I've seen several carbon frames break and a few steel as well. In all cases, the riders were fine and completely capable of continuing to ride - other than the bike was not.

If one of your stays hits a curb (rock, tree, another bike, or whatever) as it's falling, it's relatively easy for it to bend or break. On a local ride you call home for a ride - or walk. On a tour most riders would want to fix it and keep going.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

I've only broken one frame - a BMX that I jumped 17' and landed on flat ground. Snapped the downtube just behind the headtube but the top tube remained intact and therefore so did I. 
I don't know what these people are doing to break titanium road frames. I have a Merlin extralight - I am not easy on bikes at all and it's 12 years old and going strong. But I'm also 165lbs so not too heavy. My other bike is a titanium litespeed blueridge - load it up with 50 lbs of gear and it rides on rough terrain without incident. 
These guys must be doing something severe to break these frames.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Insight Homewood said:


> While there is a "feel," difference on different frame materials it has been my experience that changing wheels makes a bigger change in "feel," than changing frame materials. By wheel I mean wheel and tire. I find a very noticeable change in feel of my bike by just allowing lower inflation on my tires vs pumping them up to max. High enough to avoid pinch flats in aggressive riding. The thing is, we all love what we have and can dismiss other materials used in frames for not having the same, "feel," but being totally honest I enjoy riding a bike. The material it is made out of is secondary. The weight factor is high on my list. Components and wheels are high as well. What I forget is that I have a saddle I will never change from, a Brooks B-17 that fits me perfectly. I would hate the bike I love it I had a lousy saddle on it.


Many years ago I had a mid priced Puch, lugged Reynolds 531 main tubes frame. One day I upgraded the wheels. They made a hug difference in response, especially appreciated while climbing. But then, all of a sudden, I noticed how much the frame flexed and how it now felt noodly. Then I remembered what all the mechs were telling me, "The frame is the heart of the bicycle. It holds the two wheels in alignment and supports the weight and torsional flex induced by the rider. Sure, wheels and components make a big difference, but the frame is what holds everything together and determines the character of the ride. That became clear to me when I finally replaced the frame. The new frame was much better built. It faithfully transferred pedaling input to those nice stiff wheels like it was supposed to do.

I'd have a hard time deciding which is more important, the wheels or the frame, but they're really different links in the system, each contributing to the quality of the ride. A great frame won't ride all that well on flexy wheels and vice versa.

Over the years, I've also sided with the riders who say weight isn't the end all. Eddy Merckx once quipped that his bikes were a bit heavier on purpose. He wasn't willing to give up strength, stiffness and response, to the god of lightweight. Carbon tech has made possible strength AND light weight, so that may be less of an issue today than 15 years ago when Eddy said that. But I'm still convinced there's a direct relationship between strength and mass. Cut the mass down to bare bones and strength decreases, Places of stress such as the chainstays and seat tube BB joinings are slightly quicker to come apart from hard riding. Really low mass frames can't be as crashworthy, either. So builders compensate by making the paper thin tubes so fat, which presents another challenge, shock absorption and comfort. 

Most riders probably don't care, but I'm not ready to blow $5000 on a bike, much less a frame, that I can't trust implicitly over the long haul. Steel does that superbly well. Unlike alu or carbon, it'll shake and roll forever without coming apart. The weakest parts of steel frames are how well the joints are brazed or welded, pretty much the skill of the builder.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Is that a common thing, crashing hard enough to bend a steel frame without sustaining bodily injury?


I got "doored" twenty years ago. My Cinelli fork was bent out of alignment but I was completely unscathed except for a big bruise on my shoulder. And that is a very solid frame, Columbus SL with an SP downtube and chainstays.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Heck, its all good


I have no problem with skilled artisans tooting their own horn.

I do have a problem with them badmouthing stuff that makes them feel insecure. A lot of the criticism of carbon frames is irrational nonsense and scare tactics.

I have tried lots and owned a few top shelf steel bikes but my carbon bike is better in ever way. Lighter, stiffer, more comfortable. No debate.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

(can't find the delete post function)


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

bradkay said:


> You can get a "stiff" and "compliant" ride by the way that you manipulate the frame material. Look at a late 90s or early 2000s Klein made with the Gradient/ZR9000 tubing. The tubing is not butted in the traditional sense - the walls gradually taper so as to not concentrate the stress at a single point, allowing an even thinner walled tube (the alloy itself has a higher fatigue strength than standard 6000 or 7000 series aluminum, making it safe to go so thin). If you look at the downtube you will see that it starts out round at the HT junction and ovalizes horizontally towards the bottom bracket. This allows for vertical movement but resists side-to-side flex from hammering on the pedals. Most carbon endurance bikes are using a similar downtube setup these days. IF you combine that with a compact frame where more seatpost is exposed (allowing it to flex back) or the Domane's decoupled seat tube, you get an even more vertically compliant frame - without sacrificing bottom bracket stiffness.


My Klein with gradient tubing was a boneshaker. Switching to ti was a revelation.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

Insight Homewood said:


> While there is a "feel," difference on different frame materials it has been my experience that changing wheels makes a bigger change in "feel," than changing frame materials. By wheel I mean wheel and tire. I find a very noticeable change in feel of my bike by just allowing lower inflation on my tires vs pumping them up to max. High enough to avoid pinch flats in aggressive riding. .....


Well yes, wheels, tires, and tire pressure do make a big difference - though it's always good to maintain 120psi min on roads. But the first time I rode a Merlin Titianium on a rough country road - after getting everything ready - I thought I had a flat tire. When I realized the tires were still rock hard I realized it was the difference in feel beween aluminum and Ti. The ti was so plush and smooth. Yet it still transferred power like mad. My conclusion thus far is that frame material does make a huge difference and ti is my top preference. For corrosion proofness, comfort, handling, and aesthetics.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> I have no problem with skilled artisans tooting their own horn.
> 
> I do have a problem with them badmouthing stuff that makes them feel insecure. A lot of the criticism of carbon frames is irrational nonsense and scare tactics.
> 
> I have tried lots and owned a few top shelf steel bikes but my carbon bike is better in ever way. Lighter, stiffer, more comfortable. No debate.


You mean like getting splinters in the skin from carbon shards coming off in a crash? 

My friend says his Fuji Altamira is "like formula One." "Lighter, stiffer, more comfortable," he said  A totally new game than the old steel Raleigh he raced 20 years ago. His favorite bike still is the Stumpjumper he's had since the 90s, though. I think that was his bike in mountain bike races. Lugged steel!


----------



## NYCBikeGuy (Dec 5, 2013)

Call me old-fashioned. I've never owned a road bike that was not steel. I've ridden aluminum frames and OCV frames. None of those experiences made me want to give up steel. Each of the three times I've been in the market for a road frame in the last 27 years, I looked for steel. Each time, there's been a frame available that met my needs at a price I could afford. If my most recently acquired steel frame is as good as it looks and feels so far (and granted, it takes time for bad welds/faulty steel to make themselves apparent), this frame will last me until I'm so old and addled that I will not be cognizant of the fact that steel frames have disappeared from the face of the earth.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

RichardT said:


> I started riding about 7 years ago and since that time I've owned two carbon bikes and one aluminum. I'm curious about the ride qualities of steel and ti bikes, and I love how some of them look. So I'd consider buying one -- except that I've never actually seen one at any of my local bike shops, so a test ride seems out of the question. On top of that, buying ti or steel these days seems to require paying full retail, whereas you can get some really good buys on carbon or aluminum. For example, the last bike I bought was a 2011 Litespeed Archon C1 (carbon). I bought it on clearance at my LBS in 2012 for $2,000, about 50% off MSRP. I love the bike and I believe I got a great buy. Now, the same LBS has on its website the Litespeed T1 and T3 frames  (ti) for $4,000 and $3,000, respectively. I've never seen them discounted and I suspect the shop doesn't even carry an inventory of them. Seems like the same story for quality steel road bikes. I keep reading about them, but I've never actually seen one for sale in a bike shop.
> 
> So here's what I'm wondering: If ti and steel really offer a ride quality that a lot of cyclists would enjoy (despite the fact that they're a bit heavier), why don't local bike shops carry at least a few high-quality ti and steel bikes? The obvious answer is that it's a niche market. But if shops don't put them on the floor to sell where you can touch them and take them out for a test ride, and maybe pick one up on clearance, then the market for these bikes will always be niche. Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy, or am I missing something?


Some do. In New York NYC Velo has a few. Steel and Titanium can be good choices. Sid's bike shop in NY carries Moots. We're only talking about one pound separating steel/titanium and carbon in many cases. This isn't a deal breaker. But I do think steel and titanium will forever be relegated to niche products. The industry is selling people bikes they want. Mass produced, made in Taiwan/China monocoque frames. Stiffnesss, light and rust free are what sell. Titanium and Steel tend to go to buffs and older cyclists. There are exceptions, but this is more true than false. Aluminum is the frame material for people looking for a cheap inexpensive road bike.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

neubilder said:


> Well yes, wheels, tires, and tire pressure do make a big difference - though it's always good to maintain 120psi min on roads.


sorry, stopped at this point. you're talking nonsense since there's no relation to rider weight, tyre volume or surface.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

den bakker said:


> sorry, stopped at this point. you're talking nonsense since there's no relation to rider weight, tyre volume or surface.


What are you suggesting? Apparently you are inferring a lot from what you thought I said. 
I didn't claim that my weight had anything to do with tire pressure - just frame fatigue. Nor did I say it had anything to do with road surface - just that on a rough surface you can really feel the bumps. My point - in order to make myself understood, is that the ti frame was so comfortable compared to my aluminum bike that it felt like I had a flat tire - even though my tires were in fact pumped to over 120psi.

Did you choose to misread my statements in order justify throwing out condescension?


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

den bakker said:


> sorry, stopped at this point. you're talking nonsense since there's no relation to rider weight, tyre volume or surface.


And are you suggesting that there is no relationship between rider weight, tire volume (though I only mentioned tire pressure), and surface? Try riding on a soft surface with skinny tires pumped to 140 psi and see what you think.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

neubilder said:


> ..though it's always good to maintain 120psi min on roads.


Good for who? 100 psi is the most air pressure that I run in a 23mm tire, and with wider tires I run less. 120 psi seems like a good way to rattle your teeth and bounce all over the road.

Try less pressure and you may find that you're less fatigued, much more comfortable, and possibly faster.


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

Fredrico said:


> Most riders probably don't care, but I'm not ready to blow $5000 on a bike, much less a frame, that I can't trust implicitly over the long haul. Steel does that superbly well. Unlike alu or carbon, it'll shake and roll forever without coming apart. The weakest parts of steel frames are how well the joints are brazed or welded, pretty much the skill of the builder.


It occurred to me when reading this part of your post that I also was able to get my dream bike built (which happens to be a full custom carbon fiber bike made by Calfee Design) that had that quality I wanted, hence, a bike I can trust over the long haul. I've beat it up, crashed on it, wore out tires and other bits. I am convinced based on my personal experience, that bike that has as a part of its total (wheels, cranks, chain, groups, etc) a frame made from carbon fiber built rugged, for the long haul. 

I do have experience flexing steel frames when young and pedaling hard. I also had the first impression when I rode one of those new Cannondale aluminum frame bikes. Wow, the Cannondale was way stiff. My carbon bike is way stiff but more comfortable to ride than that old Cannondale was. 

Knowing the experiences I had on various bikes over the years and getting an understanding of flex and proper fit, I have become material-neutral. I would love to get a custom made lugged steel frame some day. I would have a frame/bike that is in part, a work of art. My current ride is important to me, not because of what bits and stuff are on it, nor the material the frame is made of, but because it fits me perfectly (by design) and it is my bicycle, my personal unique machine.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

neubilder said:


> it's always good to maintain 120psi min on roads.


Check out the Wheels and Tires forum, nobody uses such high pressure anymore.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

NYCBikeGuy said:


> this frame will last me until I'm so old and addled that I will not be cognizant of the fact that steel frames have disappeared from the face of the earth.


If you think that steel frames will ever "disappear from the face of the earth" you're probably "old and addled" now.

Or maybe just really drunk.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Local Hero said:


> Is that a common thing, crashing hard enough to bend a steel frame without sustaining bodily injury?


I got T-boned hard enough to knock my De Rosas bottom bracket about a half inch out of alignment and bend the crank arm. I took out the guys winshield and got some cuts and bruises.
I brought the frame to a frame builder, Ron Boi RRB, and he cold set it back straight. I updated the group and that bike is still one of my main riders. My #2 these days.

The only reason I wasn't riding the next day is because that one was out of service, and I needed to freshen up my other bike(grease and cables) before taking it out.


----------



## Cracker69 (Dec 14, 2013)

So I thought I might chime in. I'm primarily a mountain biker but I ride roads for training convenience and I am a general bike enthusiast. Two years ago I picked up my first dedicated road bike (2005 Red Le Mond Tourmalet - all aluminum) which has a sweet looking wagon; I was convinced that I would be much faster on this machine. I was disappointed to discover that my average speeds were ostensibly the same as my 29er (with low profile tread 2.1" tires). Moreover, I could feel every irregularity in the surface and the jarring was sapping the life out of a 50 mile jaunt. I soon sold this medieval torture device and didn't think about road bike again for about 18 months. So in this discussion I represent a clydesdale devout fat tire rider, exquisitely sensitive to the feel of the bike beneath given my squishy tire preference. I recently got curious about the roadie thing again and thought I would give steel a whirl. I picked up a 2005 Bianchi Imola (also a pretty machine) and I was amazed to discover that I actually like road riding. Sure its upbrupt compared to my 29ers but really entirely tolerable. The Imola is a basic Reynolds 631 TIG welded tube set, but my what a sweet and slippery feel it has. On this machine I register 1.5-2.0 mph average faster than my 29ers which I think speaks both to the modest benefit of a a dedicated road bike in terms of speed and the fact that vibrational chatter can suck the life out of your legs. On perfectly smooth surfaces I imagine aluminum is magical but I am yet to find a road with such properties.
I have never ridden carbon, but my impression is that it is more readily tunable in construction and so much more difficult to generalize about. Many demonstrations have shown that carbon is superior in both strength and long term durability but that does not shield us from poor design or flaws in construction. Obviously carbon frames are light weight but I think that has always been a marketing gimmick. A lean rider with a good engine will always stomp another rider with lesser legs and lungs regardless of the bikes they are riding. I think as consumers we believe we can buy performance, but we can't. Advancements in materials and design provide miniscule added speed that does not trump and will not trump innate rider metabolic prowess.

So if I had a point, I guess I am suggesting that the rider is most often the greatest limitation, it therfore makes sense to ride a bike that feels comfortable and forget the hooplah about rigidity and power transfer and and and......


----------



## rebel1916 (Aug 4, 2007)

View attachment 289878


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

laffeaux said:


> Good for who? 100 psi is the most air pressure that I run in a 23mm tire, and with wider tires I run less. 120 psi seems like a good way to rattle your teeth and bounce all over the road.
> 
> Try less pressure and you may find that you're less fatigued, much more comfortable, and possibly faster.





Cinelli 82220 said:


> Check out the Wheels and Tires forum, nobody uses such high pressure anymore.


I appreciate this input and I make no claim to be an authority on the subject, I'm mainly basing this on experience - and my conclusions are always open to revision.

Up until last year it was my belief too that tires shouldn't be over-inflated. I tended to keep my tires at around 100 psi. But the roads I've been riding lately haven't been very good and I started getting snakebite flats regularly from pinching the tube. So reluctantly I started pumping my tires harder to +/- 120 psi, and found that not only did I stop getting flats, but the bike felt better too and not at all rattly. It feels great, and smooth. I'm using Veloflex Pave tires which specify a minimum pressure of 100psi and a max of 145psi. It seemed to me that 120 was a happy medium.

With my Aluminum Klein, tire pressures like these would have been torture, but on my Merlin it just seems to soak them up.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

I find all this talk of Steel & Ti being niche or having sagging popularity highly amusing.

I work for a small manufacturer and we cannot build enough steel to keep up with demand. We have 4 single speed frames & 5 road frames on offer in steel, compared to only 3 alloy, 3 carbon and one Ti.

I have to concede that Ti is a niche product, but steel is alive and kicking.

That's the sales experience.

Personally I have had all the materials at some time in the last 10 years. At the top end of affairs there is not a massive amount of difference between a steel framed bike and a carbon framed bike, or for that matter good alloy.

A few years ago I was knocked off a 653 framed bike at 30 mph. I was hospitalised and the bike was totalled, beyond repair. Several years later I was sideswiped on a Time VXRS resulting in a separated shoulder for me and cuts & bruises for the Time. So much for carbon's fragility compared to steel!

A while after the sideswipe I went on holiday to the Italian Lakes, but as the bike was still waiting for an assessor to finalise the claim, I couldn't take it with me. Instead I took my 2002 De Rosa Merak, which weighs almost a kilo more with the same wheels. Next time I went to Italy I was able to take the VXRS and ride the same roads as on the Merak. I couldn't honestly tell any real difference in the rides.

So that's the riding experience.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Mike Burrows says...


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Dec 9, 2013)

velodog said:


> Mike Burrows says...


Sheldon Brown wrote a good article that seems to agree with a lot of the things Burrows has to say:

Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

I can't accept the claim that all materials can achieve precisely the same strength/ stiffness/ride characteristics depending only upon how the material is used. For example, steel can not be used in a monocoque design in the way carbon is used. The steel would have to be too thin - to the point that it would become fragile. 

It may be possible to use carbon to mimic the ride qualities of steel, but I suspect not the reverse.


----------



## PoisonDartFrog (Dec 9, 2013)

neubilder said:


> I can't accept the claim that all materials can achieve precisely the same strength/ stiffness/ride characteristics depending only upon how the material is used. For example, steel can not be used in a monocoque design in the way carbon is used. The steel would have to be too thin - to the point that it would become fragile.
> 
> It may be possible to use carbon to mimic the ride qualities of steel, but I suspect not the reverse.


It can be done; motorcycles and autos use steel monocoque frames. But in order to do it, it moves another design parameter - weight - beyond the acceptable range for this application. It's impractical make a monocoque frame for a bike, and unnecessary for strength and rigidity purposes. 

Similarly, you can build a car frame out of composite material - specifically, forged composites used in the Lamborghini Aventador. Not EXACTLY the same thing as CF tho...

Forged composites have the potential to revolutionize a lot of industries... stronger then Ti and 1/3 the weight, and easier to work with than CF fabric.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Been listening to these Carbon vs steel discussions for some time and the following summarized my feelings.

1) A classic steel frame or even titanium(not sloping) just looks nice.
2) The arguments about crashing and what it potentially does to a carbon frame strike me as a red herring or straw man. Most of us do not ride in a manner inviting a crash
3) The weight differential between a quality TI or steel bike versus a Carbon one is effectively around one pound
4) Carbon frames can play with lay-ups and carbon densities and shapes across the whole frame. Steel and Titanium can mix and match tubes but they can't attack engineering issues at the same level of granularity as Carbon.
5) A lot more money is going into making better carbon than it is with regards to Steel or Titanium
6) The rider's legs can matter a great deal more than the frame
7) More specialty bike companies embrace steel and Titanium. They can't compete with Asia in Carbon and steel and Titanium are more accessible.
8) A bike is a very emotional thing. One should buy what they enjoy looking at as much as they enjoy riding.

Personally I have a great Carbon bike, which I enjoy. I would very much like to also own a top notch Titanium or Steel bike someday as a contrast, perhaps a Colnago Master or Seven Axiom. I suspect I will always prefer climbing in my Colnago, but for going down hills fast even on straights, the Steel/Titanium could be a very good option.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

@Trek_5200

(Chuckle)

I'd have to agree that you pretty much summed it up.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

neubilder said:


> I can't accept the claim that all materials can achieve precisely the same strength/ stiffness/ride characteristics depending only upon how the material is used. For example, steel can not be used in a monocoque design in the way carbon is used. The steel would have to be too thin - to the point that it would become fragile.
> 
> It may be possible to use carbon to mimic the ride qualities of steel, but I suspect not the reverse.


You're missing the point... you've got four factors to consider: stiffness/rigidity, comfort, longevity, and weight. Regardless of the manufacturing process, you can match comfort and stiffness between materials without a problem, and that was the point of the video. Longevity and weight are more open for debate and varies as much by material as it does by the method used to join the individual tubes. While those variations will certainly affect both longevity and weight, the resulting change in stiffness and comfort will still be negligible compared to the tubing design; the only exception being manufactured innovations to make for a more comfortable ride (zertz, isospeed, thudbuster, etc). 

You can make steel just as stiff as any carbon, but it won't be as light.


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

First, I agree with headloss.

Second, I agree with neubilder as well.

Engineers familiar with bicycles can build in any material commonly used (the big 3 being steel, titanium and composite), if they agree on a fixed weight (which won't disqualify the most dense of the big three) and can certainly make them feel exactly the same as the other with the same exact dimensions and angles. I am certain this is a true fact. 

I exclude aluminum for no reason in particular.


----------



## KojoAkimbo (Dec 6, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Been listening to these Carbon vs steel discussions for some time and the following summarized my feelings.
> 
> 1) A classic steel frame or even titanium(not sloping) just looks nice.
> 2) The arguments about crashing and what it potentially does to a carbon frame strike me as a red herring or straw man. Most of us do not ride in a manner inviting a crash
> ...



I think all of your points are good, Trekkie. More than good -- I think they get to the essence of the issue for most people.

But about crashing: it really does happen. Good friend got hit head-on by an old man driving madly, late to church. His carbon frame bike just snapped apart. I'm thinking he was probably lucky to be on a bike that would break apart so willingly, so he didn't get tangled up in the frame.

Personally I have a great titanium bike, which I very much enjoy. I would very much like to own a second good bike someday, to have a spare, but I'm not convinced that the contrast is that important for me. But I do think I'll try a bunch of carbon bikes before I buy my next bicycle, just to check.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

KojoAkimbo said:


> I think all of your points are good, Trekkie. More than good -- I think they get to the essence of the issue for most people.
> 
> But about crashing: it really does happen. Good friend got hit head-on by an old man driving madly, late to church. His carbon frame bike just snapped apart. I'm thinking he was probably lucky to be on a bike that would break apart so willingly, so he didn't get tangled up in the frame.
> 
> Personally I have a great titanium bike, which I very much enjoy. I would very much like to own a second good bike someday, to have a spare, but I'm not convinced that the contrast is that important for me. But I do think I'll try a bunch of carbon bikes before I buy my next bicycle, just to check.


In 20 odd years in the industry I have seen examples of frames made from every material that have been killed by a crash. Some have involved a vehicle while others have been solo or even the dreaded roof rack variety.

The vast majority of the time it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference what the frame was made from, it would still be toast.


----------



## cbk57 (Aug 12, 2009)

I have been following this thread on and off from the start. I have come to the conclusion that steel in particular is entirely obsolete and that all steel bikes are completely and entirely without value. I am prepared to accept my punishment for my misguided beliefs so if one of you faithful to carbon wishes to send me your old Mercx MX Leader or De Rosa Neo Primato, as penance I will pledge to ride the worthless piece of junk and suffer the derision of my fellow cyclists. I will forever serve an example of the value of a new carbon frame set as I toil away on my rolling anachronism. I will humbly serve has a humble cycling penitent in purgatory if it makes it will serve to relieve anyone else's continence.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

It's true - I was able to pick up my Ti rides for cheap thanks to the carbon craze.
Gorgeous steel frames can be had for peanuts.....Oh - shhhh - sorry.


----------



## DaveWC (Sep 21, 2012)

cbk57 said:


> I have been following this thread on and off from the start. I have come to the conclusion that steel in particular is entirely obsolete and that all steel bikes are completely and entirely without value.


Do a search and you'll find many, many threads saying that carbon is ugly, fragile and unnecessary. It seems to be a necessary thing to bash frame materials that people don't own and defends the frame materials they do own. Nothing is ever won or lost, no one ever changes their mind or tosses their bike in favor of another material. It's just a cycle that is continually repeated.


----------



## cbk57 (Aug 12, 2009)

I know, I was just expressing the fact that now I have seen the error of my ways. I shall now kneel before the gods of carbon. (I know it is a pointless and stupid debate)


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*You are a true martyr for the cause*



cbk57 said:


> I have been following this thread on and off from the start. I have come to the conclusion that steel in particular is entirely obsolete and that all steel bikes are completely and entirely without value. I am prepared to accept my punishment for my misguided beliefs so if one of you faithful to carbon wishes to send me your old Mercx MX Leader or De Rosa Neo Primato, as penance I will pledge to ride the worthless piece of junk and suffer the derision of my fellow cyclists. I will forever serve an example of the value of a new carbon frame set as I toil away on my rolling anachronism. I will humbly serve has a humble cycling penitent in purgatory if it makes it will serve to relieve anyone else's continence.


Will you also ride with a scarlet "S" on your chest?


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

I'll stir the pot a little. Using composites in industry is growing because of the merits of the material vs the way things have been done before. Where strength and durability are necessary is in the aviation industry. I have read that the bicycle industry use of carbon fiber is only a small fraction of that industry in general. Both Boeing and Airbus have started using composites in their planes for the benefits of adequate strength and lower weight vs aluminum.

By now I gather there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of carbon fiber bikes on the market, at all price levels. If it were as fragile as those who dislike it claim, I would certainly know about it. It would be newsworthy. The bicycle industry would shun it. However, 25 years have now gone by since the original carbon fiber bikes hit the industry. There is no possible way that, in all those years, for carbon fiber bikes to be fragile compared to steel and titanium.

I have seen many anecdotal statements that are used as "evidence," that carbon fiber is fragile. I have seen those who have never ridden a carbon fiber bike dismissing the material out of hand. There are those that claim that, in a crash, if you break your carbon fiber bike, its toast. Actually, carbon fiber is easier to repair than any heat-treated frame. The military and commercial aviation industries both require that it be repairable. 

The bottom line is, rather than ignore those of us who like the benefits of carbon fiber, those who dislike it seem to pile up their vitriol. The more things change, the more they remain the same.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

i am still on the fence. a new steel bike for me would be nice, but there may be something to this carbon craze and there is a lot of carbon now at the entry level $1000 mark that i just made up.


----------



## cbk57 (Aug 12, 2009)

The only case where I believe carbon bikes are overly fragile is where manufacturers have removed too much material in an effort to make the bike as light as possible. I do believe that is the case in some of the extreme cases of the lightest bikes on the market. At the same time I know of specific cases where steel and aluminum bikes the same thing was done and they were fragile too. I was playing around with my original post in fun but shall now leave the debate. I love old bikes but have nothing against new ones either.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

cbk57 said:


> The only case where I believe carbon bikes are overly fragile is where manufacturers have removed too much material in an effort to make the bike as light as possible. I do believe that is the case in some of the extreme cases of the lightest bikes on the market. At the same time I know of specific cases where steel and aluminum bikes the same thing was done and they were fragile too. I was playing around with my original post in fun but shall now leave the debate. I love old bikes but have nothing against new ones either.


Do you think the entry level Carbon bikes by Nashbar, Bikes direct and Performance would be a good start on the low end? Or should we just stick with steel?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

DaveG said:


> Will you also ride with a scarlet "S" on your chest?


Naw. I'll ride with 'im! :yesnod:


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

sport7 said:


> Do you think the entry level Carbon bikes by Nashbar, Bikes direct and Performance would be a good start on the low end? Or should we just stick with steel?


If I weren't already set up, I'd sure consider an entry level carbon bike. They come in with weight, components and wheels worthy of competitive riding like with clubs and events. They make the best fitness bikes, hands down. They're responsive and fun to ride, and you can go 50 miles on a Sunday afternoon before you know it.

If you want utility, take it from there. I think that's where low end steel becomes competitive, which is what you're dealing with, right? Something like a Kona cyclocross or equivalent.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

cbk57 said:


> The only case where I believe carbon bikes are overly fragile is where manufacturers have removed too much material in an effort to make the bike as light as possible. I do believe that is the case in some of the extreme cases of the lightest bikes on the market. At the same time I know of specific cases where steel and aluminum bikes the same thing was done and they were fragile too. I was playing around with my original post in fun but shall now leave the debate. I love old bikes but have nothing against new ones either.


I race on a frame that weighs well under 1000 grams, including the integrated seat post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but use of 50-60 ton high modulus carbon actually makes this bike lighter, stiffer and *less* fragile than a lower modulus carbon bike.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> I race on a frame that weighs well under 1000 grams, including the integrated seat post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but use of 50-60 ton high modulus carbon actually makes this bike lighter, stiffer and *less* fragile than a lower modulus carbon bike.


Why would it be any less fragile? It's lighter because you use less material, so I'll give you that... it's lighter. It's not necessarily stiffer (stiffness is something designed into a frame and NOT a characteristic of the material in of itself). It's no less fragile compared to the lower carbon frame that uses more material. What makes a carbon frame strong? It's one of two things. It either has more material layered on or it has more dense material i.e. high modulus.


----------



## neubilder (Apr 22, 2012)

Insight Homewood said:


> The bottom line is, rather than ignore those of us who like the benefits of carbon fiber, those who dislike it seem to pile up their vitriol.


It's not as though carbon represents an oppressed minority. Carbon has swept the industry by storm and now dominates. 
It's a bit like claiming that Guatemalan villagers pile up vitriol against the US. Sure, sometimes they do, but it's not like it really matters to the US and besides, can you blame them?


----------



## Insight Homewood (Aug 15, 2013)

Yet, even though its use has increased gradually over 25 years time, I have seen many folks who say it is a fad, nothing more. Riiiiiight.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Insight Homewood said:


> Yet, even though its use has increased gradually over 25 years time, I have seen many folks who say it is a fad, nothing more. Riiiiiight.


Frame, or carbon components? I'd say that to some extent the over-use of carbon in some components is a fad. For a frame, carbon is efficient. For components (brake levers, front derailleur cages, etc.) it is making a structurally weaker part for the sake of saving a few grams. Carbon makes a good tube, but not a good derailleur cage imho.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*support group*



neubilder said:


> It's not as though carbon represents an oppressed minority. Carbon has swept the industry by storm and now dominates.
> It's a bit like claiming that Guatemalan villagers pile up vitriol against the US. Sure, sometimes they do, but it's not like it really matters to the US and besides, can you blame them?


Maybe rbr needs to start a support group for persecuted carbon owners


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

headloss said:


> Frame, or carbon components? I'd say that to some extent the over-use of carbon in some components is a fad. For a frame, carbon is efficient. For components (brake levers, front derailleur cages, etc.) it is making a structurally weaker part for the sake of saving a few grams. Carbon makes a good tube, but not a good derailleur cage imho.


Can't resist. 

True, the difference between a carbon derailleur cage, seat post or brake lever vs. aluminum are negligible, nonetheless, riders can feel the difference! Carbon levers are lighter, and have a "softer" feel; carbon handlebars and seat posts aren't quite as harsh over bumps, and so on. IME, carbon handlebars are indestructible--to a point only reached in a catastrophic crash, same as the very best heat treated aluminum. 

I'm basing this on anecdotal experience. Others may have more experience in this.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

Fredrico said:


> I'm basing this on anecdotal experience. Others may have more experience in this.


My experience with carbon levers is on a mountain bike. In my very first relatively-minor crash after installing a pair of Magura brakes with carbon levers, the lever for the rear brake snapped at the pivot (the carbon snapped). After seeing the price for a new lever was about $90, I decided that aluminum levers where a much better and cheaper option (although with a 3 or 4 gram weight penalty).

I have used carbon bars, seat posts, and forks and have had no issue with any of them. I've not owned a carbon frame (although I sold plenty of them when I worked in a shop) because I'm generally not a fan of carbon frames. I prefer steel, but I also have and do own aluminum frames as well. I don't care if others ride carbon and don't think that they are unsafe, but in the list of pros/cons for me carbon bikes don't win out.


----------



## jct78 (Dec 12, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> IME, carbon handlebars are indestructible--to a point only reached in a catastrophic crash, same as the very best heat treated aluminum.
> 
> I'm basing this on anecdotal experience. Others may have more experience in this.


or your bike could just fall over in the stand and break your carbon bars...
Technical FAQ: Yes, I still race cyclocross on carbon bars - VeloNews.com


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

jct78 said:


> or your bike could just fall over in the stand and break your carbon bars...
> Technical FAQ: Yes, I still race cyclocross on carbon bars - VeloNews.com


Thanks for the heads up! Zinn says he grips lightly doing fast descents, citing the example of his buddy hitting a hard bump and one side of the bar giving way. That happened to riding buddy. His Cinelli bar broke next to the stem. The break had been sneaking up on him, though. He finally hit that last bump that did the job. :shocked: 

So carbon gives no warning? It just breaks? H'mmmm….alu cracks and then wiggles for a time, steel cracks and stays relatively stiff for a while, gradually expanding the breaks, so there's plenty of warning. Another nice property of steel.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

As much as I'm a steel bike kinda guy, I have experimented with carbon and I had a carbon bar failure that wasn't catastrophic. 
My front end got to feeling soft. I checked the wheel and spokes, nope. The headset, nope. Stem and bars secure, yep. But wait a minute, what's this? My handlebar, just above the brake lever had some give. Maybe 2/3mm and that was under the tape so maybe a bit more without the tape.

I didn't wait till they snapped but switched them out before total failure. There was no crash, nor was there any neglect, probably a manufacturers defect, but I don't know.
The manufacturer replaced them with a new set of the same but my nervous self went to aluminum bars.

This ain't here because the bars broke and carbon ain't no good, I just wanted to say that carbon don't always break with no warning. It can sneak up on ya and if your senses are working right you may realize something's wrong before you find your ass on the concrete.

Oh, and just for the record, I won't use carbon bars because of that incident, but that has nothing to do with me not riding carbon bikes. I rode that carbon bike for another year or better before I decided that *I just prefer steel* and ordered a new steel frame to transfer everything over to.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> So carbon gives no warning? It just breaks?


Sometimes, but you can weave other stuff into the cloth so it replicates the steel fatigue failure mode.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

headloss said:


> Why would it be any less fragile? It's lighter because you use less material, so I'll give you that... it's lighter. It's not necessarily stiffer (stiffness is something designed into a frame and NOT a characteristic of the material in of itself). It's no less fragile compared to the lower carbon frame that uses more material. What makes a carbon frame strong? It's one of two things. It either has more material layered on or it has more dense material i.e. high modulus.


Wrong in many ways.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

velodog said:


> As much as I'm a steel bike kinda guy, I have experimented with carbon and I had a carbon bar failure that wasn't catastrophic.
> My front end got to feeling soft. I checked the wheel and spokes, nope. The headset, nope. Stem and bars secure, yep. But wait a minute, what's this? My handlebar, just above the brake lever had some give. Maybe 2/3mm and that was under the tape so maybe a bit more without the tape.
> 
> I didn't wait till they snapped but switched them out before total failure. There was no crash, nor was there any neglect, probably a manufacturers defect, but I don't know.
> ...



you don't save that much weight by having a carbon bar. On my winter bike I keep it aluminum. The weight penalty is minimal and the bars are cheaper and conform to the same shape as their carbon versions(at least in my case)


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Trek_5200 said:


> Been listening to these Carbon vs steel discussions for some time and the following summarized my feelings.
> 
> 1) A classic steel frame or even titanium(not sloping) just looks nice.
> 2) The arguments about crashing and what it potentially does to a carbon frame strike me as a red herring or straw man. Most of us do not ride in a manner inviting a crash
> ...


I agree with just about everything you've written. Your last paragraph should read: _Personally I have a great Carbon bike, which I enjoy. I would very much like to also own a top notch Titanium *AND* Steel bike someday as a *COMPLEMENT*, perhaps a Colnago Master or Seven Axiom. *and why not a great aluminum bike?*I suspect I will always prefer climbing in my Colnago, but for going down hills fast even on straights, the Steel/Titanium could be a very good option_

Interesting about your thoughts about going downhill - I have a nice CF bike and a nice vintage steel bike. I really don't feel much difference climbing - there is a couple pounds weight difference, but both bikes are stiff and neither is a boat anchor for climbing. Maybe in a set of controlled trials, the CF bike might be a tiny of a fraction faster because it's a tiny fraction lighter, but it's nothing I can ever perceive.

But downhill - the CF bike is quite a bit better at high speed (say 35-45 mph). It tracks better, feels more secure and is psychologically more comfortable. What I attribute it to is not the weight nor the material, but the geometry. The CF bike is a Felt Z which is "relaxed" and definitely feels stable. The steel bike (mid-80s Sannino) was probably designed for crits, and has very steep angles and a shorter wheel base. It is actually fun to ride at high speed downhill on twisty roads, but if there's a straight stretch at high speed, it feels unconfortably squirrley, while the Felt Z just tracks comfortably. Top speed is the same on both, as fast as I care to go.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Trek_5200 said:


> you don't save that much weight by having a carbon bar. On my winter bike I keep it aluminum. The weight penalty is minimal and the bars are cheaper and conform to the same shape as their carbon versions(at least in my case)


Weight don't really make me no nevermind. My bikes weigh 21/22 lbs. and by the time a saddle bag and 2 water bottles and my 185 lbs are on the bike, what different does a coupla ounces make.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Sometimes, but you can weave other stuff into the cloth so it replicates the steel fatigue failure mode.


Aha, yet another handicap fiber has over steel, rapid fatigue to failure rate! :nono: So engineers have to put a layer of kevlar in there so the frame doesn't split like balsa wood?

A kid I used to ride with rode a whole week on a seat post that was splitting at the front derailleur clamp. We surmised it got started by over tightening the clamp bolt so that it scored the seat tube. My buddy was a gorilla out of saddle type on the climbs. He whacked the frame back and forth violently while stomping on the pedals in big gears. His lateral force on the BB must have been awesome. The broken tube looked like it had been overheated in the brazing, and the derailleur was clamped around the paper thin part of the butted tube, which didn't help.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

headloss said:


> Frame, or carbon components? I'd say that to some extent the over-use of carbon in some components is a fad. For a frame, carbon is efficient. For components (brake levers, front derailleur cages, etc.) it is making a structurally weaker part for the sake of saving a few grams.


Carbon brake levers are awesome because they feel a lot warmer in cold weather that doesn't quite reach the threshold below which I wear gloves.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Wrong in many ways.


Thank you for your helpful input.



Drew Eckhardt said:


> Carbon brake levers are awesome because they feel a lot warmer in cold weather that doesn't quite reach the threshold below which I wear gloves.


I agree with this. I think it was more of an unintended consequence than a designed benefit. None the less, it is a benefit!


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Camilo said:


> I agree with just about everything you've written. Your last paragraph should read: _Personally I have a great Carbon bike, which I enjoy. I would very much like to also own a top notch Titanium *AND* Steel bike someday as a *COMPLEMENT*, perhaps a Colnago Master or Seven Axiom. *and why not a great aluminum bike?*I suspect I will always prefer climbing in my Colnago, but for going down hills fast even on straights, the Steel/Titanium could be a very good option_
> 
> Interesting about your thoughts about going downhill - I have a nice CF bike and a nice vintage steel bike. I really don't feel much difference climbing - there is a couple pounds weight difference, but both bikes are stiff and neither is a boat anchor for climbing. Maybe in a set of controlled trials, the CF bike might be a tiny of a fraction faster because it's a tiny fraction lighter, but it's nothing I can ever perceive.
> 
> But downhill - the CF bike is quite a bit better at high speed (say 35-45 mph). It tracks better, feels more secure and is psychologically more comfortable. What I attribute it to is not the weight nor the material, but the geometry. The CF bike is a Felt Z which is "relaxed" and definitely feels stable. The steel bike (mid-80s Sannino) was probably designed for crits, and has very steep angles and a shorter wheel base. It is actually fun to ride at high speed downhill on twisty roads, but if there's a straight stretch at high speed, it feels unconfortably squirrley, while the Felt Z just tracks comfortably. Top speed is the same on both, as fast as I care to go.



Very dissatisfied with Aluminum. It's sole virtues are that is is light and inexpensive, but the ride qualities cannot compare with Carbon and Steel or Ti.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

I would think nice 28mm tires would ease the lack of compliance of aluminum frames.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I ride a Giant Escape 0 right now with 700 x 28 tires. The frame is aluminum and the front fork is carbon. Yes, they sure do help make it a smoother ride. However, the payback is, slower speeds. If you're not too much in a hurry, the 28's help absorb the road vibration much more than 25's do. And let's not forget what type of tires are on the bike. For me, I have the stock Giant tires that came with the bike. They're puncture resistant, not puncture proof. They roll pretty smooth. They do not provide the protection that Conti Gatorskins do, but the Gatorskins have a much harder tire casing and don't roll as smooth as a softer tire. And lastly, it's about tire pressure as well. Obviously, the more air, the harder the ride.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

I know this has been a heated thread. carbon vs. steel vs. titanium vs. aluminum and even bamboo. I say, whatever gets you up off the couch and on the open road, just do it and enjoy it. Life is too short to argue which one is the best. If you like carbon and it's flash and it being mass produced, go for it. If you can't afford a carbon framed bike and aluminum is the only thing in your budget, then by all means, buy it. If you are looking for a custom steel or ti frame to suit your riding style, then why not? Personally, in my opinion, I'm thinking maybe some cyclists probably had to start somewhere and decided to try something different. Maybe when they started, their budget only allowed aluminum. Maybe they cycled in an era where steel frames were the standard, then they stopped cycling for a while, and are getting back into it. Maybe some have tried carbon bikes and just didn't like the ride compared to their previously owned steel bike. Maybe some bought carbon because it is the "material of the day", and had a bad experience with it, then decided to go Ti or steel. I've been in all of those categories since the '70's. My first bikes were all Schwinn. I remember having a Schwinn with the banana seat. As I got older, I bought a Schwinn Varsity, and then a Le Tour. Yes, those bikes were heavy and had the suicide shifters on the downtube. I got away from cycling in the 80's and 90's, and even into the early 2000's, as I was in the Army and moved around quite a bit. I was in combat arms, and was in the field training weeks on end, and when I wasn't, worked long hours on end, so I didn't have time to ride. In the mid 2000's, I wanted to get back into cycling after I was discharged. I couldn't run anymore as I used to, as I've had seven surgeries on my feet. Cycling was the only option. As I got back into it, I made the mistake every new cyclist makes. I bought a department store Diamondback steel framed mountain bike at Sports Authority. It was the end of the season clearance, and I thought I was getting a good deal. Regular price was $300, and I got it for $60. I was so excited, I bought one each for my twin sons. We rode them, and soon realized how heavy and uncomfortable they were. I was fortunate enough to sell them for more than I paid for them. We then went to several bike shops and I was "Shocked" at how much bikes were. We all ended up with Trek and Gary Fisher hybrid bikes. I'm pretty sure they were aluminum and they had shock absorbers. We all rode them much more comfortable than the Diamondback bikes. After a few years, I lost weight and wanted something better and faster. I started looking at road bikes. Again, at the end of the season, is when I shopped. I was even more "sticker shocked" at the high prices. I was also amazed that the brakes and shifters were all integrated together, and no more "suicide shifters. Further, I had absolutely no idea most frames back in the mid 2000's were carbon fiber. I had no idea. I was impressed by how light they were. I ended up with a Giant TCR C2. I rode the heck out of it for several years, then wanted something newer and better. I had several other CF bikes up until earlier this year. I already told my story with my bad luck with my Infinito and Defy Advanced 1, so when I sold those, I chose to try a Ti bike. While I'm still awaiting my Lynskey R255 to be assembled, I can't compare the ride yet to previously owned CF bikes. I'm sure I will once it arrives.

I'm sure my experience is similar to most here. Just get out and ride it and enjoy it. Just get out there and do it, rather than start a war on frame material.


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Srode said:


> I would think nice 28mm tires would ease the lack of compliance of aluminum frames.


No. I have an aluminum hybrid (Kona) and even with 35mm tires, it's a very harsh ride. On the other hand, I've taken an aluminum (Focus) cross bike with 28s out a few times and it felt great. The C'dales aren't too bad. There are certainly a lot of factors beyond frame material.


----------



## laffeaux (Dec 12, 2001)

headloss said:


> No. I have an aluminum hybrid (Kona) and even with 35mm tires, it's a very harsh ride. On the other hand, I've taken an aluminum (Focus) cross bike with 28s out a few times and it felt great. The C'dales aren't too bad. There are certainly a lot of factors beyond frame material.


Aluminum is the least stiff of the "major" frame building materials. It's about 1/3 as stiff as steel. The fact that many people identify aluminum with riding harshly is 100% to do with design and nothing to do with the material.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

Fredrico said:


> Naw. I'll ride with 'im! :yesnod:


Before you do, it may be time to give aluminum one last chance.



laffeaux said:


> Aluminum is the least stiff of the "major" frame building materials. It's about 1/3 as stiff as steel. The fact that many people identify aluminum with riding harshly is 100% to do with design and nothing to do with the material.


more food for thought.

But this guy is serving up Steak in the Bikes, Frames and Forks forums. He says his entry level Windsor 3.0 is a Wonderful Machine. 

And all for 399.

i took a quick trip over there to see what it was; the first thing i found was the bike was on sale for 349. 

Wow, rock bottom.

And Sora too! Before i forget, here is the url for this entry level econo bike on RBR: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/bikes-frames-forks/windsor-wellington-3-0-a-315559.html

this may be precisely what someone needs today. He says rides of 50 to 75 miles have been Very comfortable. The bicycle looks very fast, has carbon forks (!) and enuf gears to keep all but a few mountain climbers happy.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Trek_5200 said:


> Very dissatisfied with Aluminum. It's sole virtues are that is is light and inexpensive, but the ride qualities cannot compare with Carbon and Steel or Ti.


My aluminum bike is very comfortable, but that could be because I have it set up with wider tires for commuting and gravel roads. But the saddle, handlebars, and set up are the same and it's very comfortable.

I'm not disagreeing with you except to say, aluminum bikes can be very comfortable if they fit and are set up right. My old Cannondale CAAD7 was also very comfortable, I'd say as comfortable as my steel Sannino.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

Camilo said:


> My aluminum bike is very comfortable, but that could be because I have it set up with wider tires for commuting and gravel roads. But the saddle, handlebars, and set up are the same and it's very comfortable.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you except to say, aluminum bikes can be very comfortable if they fit and are set up right. My old Cannondale CAAD7 was also very comfortable, I'd say as comfortable as my steel Sannino.


and if your right about tire width, then perhaps all these 'uncomfortable' bikes ...

just NEED a tire change.

many tests have shown that 25 mm tires are superior to 23 mm tires in regards to speed. the 23 mm tires just bounce too much and they could be over inflated. 

so if we go to 28 mm tires then all good bikes become the same? maybe the only major differences come down to weight and design. that's a stretch i know, but it would be interesting to try.

i have changed my Touring bike down from 32 mm to 25 mm to see what the differences are and probably buy a spare set of wheels for the thing too for quick change. Winter has closed in, so don't know much how these skinny tires are effecting the thing. 

Back in the 70's i bought an aluminum bicycle, a Viscount and thought it was great, until stolen. The thought never occured to me that the thing was just too stiff or uncomfortable. but i do remember putting in 100 psi into the tires and riding fast. After the bike was stolen, the mtb craze came. Bought one, but not the same: the Road bike is king of the road. Nobody worried about frames much back then in our hood, really the attitude was 'shut up and ride'. 

Now the Carbon craze is here and would like to have one of those to see if there is anything to it. After demoing a Trek Domane, well good bikes seem mostly the same to me.......Trek told me to take it home for a week and see. 

Probably the only way to know. :thumbsup:


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

The Viscount was not a stiff bike - it was known as a "wet noodle", being a small tubed aluminum bike like the Vitus frame. They were good for smaller riders but not stiff enough for competition purposes. 

My old college roommate still has his old Viscount that he has used for decades as a commuter and winter training bike.


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

bradkay said:


> The Viscount was not a stiff bike - it was known as a "wet noodle", being a small tubed aluminum bike like the Vitus frame. They were good for smaller riders but not stiff enough for competition purposes.
> 
> My old college roommate still has his old Viscount that he has used for decades as a commuter and winter training bike.


Well that confirms it then.

i am a real Recreational Rider, to me the bike was just fabulous and very lite weight for its time. 

The key is time.

Back then it seemed people were happier about everything. i haven't changed a whole lot and if you gave me a Viscount today i would still rate it a 10. 

Funny thing is, never really rode a 'bad' Road Bike other than an abandoned bike i found in the prairie........but we all had fun on that too. i even attempted to repair the thing, but someone needed it more than me (it taught me to lock up the bike).

It's so cold out, that any bike would suit today...however that would have to be in Florida or the Isles.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2013)

It's been a long time since I have heard about the Viscount/Lambert bike. 

Lambert and Viscount Bicycles


----------



## sport7 (Jan 10, 2010)

lighthouse54.1 said:


> It's been a long time since I have heard about the Viscount/Lambert bike.
> 
> Lambert and Viscount Bicycles


Well gotta say i enjoyed that bike. Very bleading edge for the times. Couldn't afford a high end bike and this aluminum bike felt like a feather. It wasn't until the 90's that aluminum came out big or maybe earlier? Anyway, that was my Carbon type ride of the day.


----------



## commuterbik (Sep 27, 2017)

RichardT said:


> I started riding about 7 years ago and since that time I've owned two carbon bikes and one aluminum. I'm curious about the ride qualities of steel and ti bikes, and I love how some of them look. So I'd consider buying one -- except that I've never actually seen one at any of my local bike shops, so a test ride seems out of the question. On top of that, buying ti or steel these days seems to require paying full retail, whereas you can get some really good buys on carbon or aluminum. For example, the last bike I bought was a 2011 Litespeed Archon C1 (carbon). I bought it on clearance at my LBS in 2012 for $2,000, about 50% off MSRP. I love the bike and I believe I got a great buy. Now, the same LBS has on its website the Litespeed T1 and T3 frames  (ti) for $4,000 and $3,000, respectively. I've never seen them discounted and I suspect the shop doesn't even carry an inventory of them. Seems like the same story for quality steel road bikes. I keep reading about them, but I've never actually seen one for sale in a bike shop.
> 
> So here's what I'm wondering: If ti and steel really offer a ride quality that a lot of cyclists would enjoy (despite the fact that they're a bit heavier), why don't local bike shops carry at least a few high-quality ti and steel bikes? The obvious answer is that it's a niche market. But if shops don't put them on the floor to sell where you can touch them and take them out for a test ride, and maybe pick one up on clearance, then the market for these bikes will always be niche. Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy, or am I missing something?


This is an old thread, but I think that steel frames are now making a comeback. You should start seeing some steel bikes in your local LBS now.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

commuterbik said:


> This is an old thread, but I think that steel frames are now making a comeback. You should start seeing some steel bikes in your local LBS now.


Yep lots of exciting things going on with Ti and Steel


----------



## walrus (Jan 29, 2004)

I ride a 14 year old titanium bike I built up myself, I got a great price on the frame. I've ridden over 4,000 miles on it so far this year, I don't know how many thousands since it was new. It's a great bike, I wouldn't trade it for any CF bike. bikesdirect.com has some good deals on titanium bikes. That's where I'd go if I ever had to replace my bike.

Save Up to 60% Off Disc Brake Road Bikes - Motobecane Turino TEAM Hydraulic Disc Brake Road Bikes


Save Up To 60% Off Shimano Ultegra Road Bikes | Titanium Road Bikes | Roadbikes - Motobecane Le Champion SL Ti


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

I don’t recall Ti bikes every being “popular.” They were considered the next step up from stainless, ChroMo was the good basic stuff, and mild steel was for plebian machines with stamped dropouts and no derailleur hangers.

Ti was always a little rare and expensive, sort of like light boutique steel is nowadays. 

Aluminum really dethroned steel, because aluminum processing could make more exotic shapes out of the metal than steel (or more easily) so eventually manufacturers learned to build lighter frames with decent ride characteristics for less weight.

We can argue over the virtues of less weight for as long as anyone likes, and get nowhere. I am not convinced an average rider really gains a lot by saving a pound or two .... but ten pounds, to me is a...but how important?.... 

I have a bunch of bikes which, ready for water bottles, weigh about 28 lbs. I have a CF bike which again, ready to ride, weighs 18.5. There is a difference, but ... I think lighter wheels make more difference. I have two bikes that weigh almost the same.... the one that is about a pound lighter feels like a lot more work to ride (I think), because the wheels are half again as heavy.

That being said ... to me, the lighter the better. having spent a lifetime lugging heavy steel touring frames up flights of stairs, and losing strength almost daily as I get older ... the less bike I need to carry up hills, the happier my ride. And right now it seems that it is easiest to build a pretty light bike with a comfortable ride around a CF frame

But ... whatever. One problem is that it takes a lot of effort to build a steel frame which has those “steel” characteristics and builds up light. it takes a lot more skill to build a Ti frame of any sort.

Basically (and not demean the actual workers) anyone who can read can lay precut prepreg sheets in a mold in a certain order and orientation. People want affordable bikes with high-performance capacities ... so commercial factors play a role.

I don’t think frame longevity is an issue either. Unless a person crashes a lot, Any bike should last a lifetime. Everyone has their favorite anecdote, but none of us would turn down a sweet deal on a 20-year-old bike just because it had a CF fork. And I doubt any of us will be putting our CF bikes out on the curbside for the trash collectors just because we have ridden them for five years.

Facts seem to be that right now, the most cost-effective way to by a lightweight frame at an affordable price is to choose CF. Custom steel and Ti are both very pricey by comparison (I own a Workswell, $450 for the frame, and am in negotiations for another, about the same price ... both frames, together, with forks weigh about six pounds—about as much as a normal steel frame. Any custom builders out there doing three-pound frames/forks for under $500 ... under $1500? <crickets>)

If I could afford a $1500 frame I would definitely go Ti ... have wanted to for a long time. Simply doesn’t make sense given my budget. Also I have wanted a stainless bike for a while ... but again, cost considerations ... will I really get three times the enjoyment out of that bike just because I paid three or five times as much for the frame? 

For those who answer, “Yes,” great. Thanks for keeping the Ti welders and custom builders in business in case I hit the lottery and can afford one of their offerings.

Otherwise ... I don’t see it as a conspiracy, and I know to some extent it is marketing ,... but for me ... I want a lightish bike at a lightish price and CF fits the bill best right now. And pretty obviously I am not the only person to think so.


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

commuterbik said:


> This is an old thread, but I think that steel frames are now making a comeback. You should start seeing some steel bikes in your local LBS now.


 We'll see. I almost hope not ... because then I would have to start questioning my recent purchases.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

commuterbik said:


> This is an old thread, but I think that steel frames are now making a comeback. You should start seeing some steel bikes in your local LBS now.


I sold off 5 bikes this year. I got rid of the carbon fibre ones and kept two. Hand made steel and Ti bikes. I have a third I'm playing around with to see how cheap and light a hillclimb bike I can make from used 1990's parts. It's aluminium.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

I like both my Ti and Carbon bikes.(gravel and road) One is not better than the other, they are simply different. Ti can be made into a great road bike. Since I travel with my bike if something happened to my Colnago I'd consider building a Ti road bike. I could stand to lose 5-10 pounds, so the one pound penalty on Ti is not really an issue. And stiffness aint an issue either.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Maelochs said:


> And I doubt any of us will be putting our CF bikes out on the curbside for the trash collectors just because we have ridden them for five years.


I'll probably end up doing just that. Since getting a Ti frame I have no desire to ride my carbon one and with about 50K miles and a few crashes on it I can't in good conscious sell it so I don't know what else to do with it. 
I get your point though and agree. That carbon bike was and probably still is tough as nails and although I wouldn't hesitate to still ride it if I had any desire to I couldn't deal with someone else riding it because of the remote chance the 50K and crashes caused a failure for them. Although welds can fail, I probably wouldn't balk at selling a steel or Ti bike with the same history.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

What are these examples of 'stainless' and 'mild steel' bike frames you speak of? I recall they used low end steel alloys int eh 70s, but doubtful they used 'mild steel.' Stainless steel - rare boutique item, never seen one myself.

Ti was fairly popular in the 90s, actually. The Lynskeys were selling them like hotcakes back then, under the name Litespeed. I knew many racers both mtb and road using them. Merlin were around too, later there was the Airborne chinese TI bikes late 90s(ish?) which cost similar to steel or alu.

I think maybe you slept through the 90s?

I bought a nice used CF bike a few years ago. It had been crashed and suitably repaired. rode it a year and resold it. fwiw I rode steel in the 70s, 80s, 90s (plus Klein mtb), then alu in the 00s and ti in the teens.

Now Ti is as accessible and inexpensive as a good steel or CF frame imho. Those Lynkseys are still selling great ti frames for under $1k these days.


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

I love my Ti bike (Volagi Viaje), and it gets ridden quite a bit as my rough road/all road/grocery getter bike. It's heavier, and slower and lot more comfortable to ride than any of my carbon bikes. And if someone told me I could only have one bike, and had to pick from my current stable, as a non-racer, 55yo, I would probably keep it over the others. However, given the choices I have (BMC GF-01, BMC RM-01, and a Norco Search), the Viaje is not often the bike I grab when I'm headed out the door. Fast group ride, or something TT oriented, I grab the RM-01. Lot's of climbing, Gran Fondo Century with lots of elevation? GF-01. Fast gravel rides/races or Cyclocross type stuff? Norco. Need fenders/bags/any surface capability but don't care how fast I get there? Viaje.

And let's not get carried away about Titanium's indestructibility. It can fail. I'm not saying it's common, but it happens.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tit...rcvWAhUO9mMKHe_eDYAQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=950


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

BCSaltchucker said:


> What are these examples of 'stainless' and 'mild steel' bike frames you speak of? I recall they used low end steel alloys int eh 70s, but doubtful they used 'mild steel.' Stainless steel - rare boutique item, never seen one myself.


 My '84 Raleigh Olympian has a ChroMo main triangle and a mild steel rear triangle and fork.



BCSaltchucker said:


> Ti was fairly popular in the 90s, actually. The Lynskeys were selling them like hotcakes back then, under the name Litespeed. I knew many racers both mtb and road using them. Merlin were around too, later there was the Airborne chinese TI bikes late 90s(ish?) which cost similar to steel or alu.


I still wouldn't say "popular." I did a lot of bike riding/shopping,, etc back around those days. More popular than now .... because it was the "step up" from Al and steel which CF is seen as now.



BCSaltchucker said:


> Now Ti is as accessible and inexpensive as a good steel or CF frame imho. Those Lynkseys are still selling great ti frames for under $1k these days.


 Not sure where they are selling frames so cheap. Not on Nashbar. But still, twice as expensive as Chinese CF.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Maelochs said:


> Not sure where they are selling frames so cheap. Not on Nashbar. But still, twice as expensive as Chinese CF.






https://www.ebay.com/sch/lynskeyperformance/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

If Lynskey ahd better advertising I'd already own one of theit bikes. I have never seen frame prices so low. 
http://stores.ebay.com/Lynskey-Performance-Designs?_trksid=p2047675.l2563

IO am not even joking. Every time I have seen Lynskey frames they have been $1500++ .... the EVBay store seems to be getting half that (frame and fork.) I just bought two bikes and am in process on a third ... i could have bought one of them and a Ti bike. And probably would have.

Thanks for posting this, kiwisimon. It won't be for a couple years and I will have to sell something .... but wow.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

kiwisimon said:


> https://www.ebay.com/sch/lynskeyperformance/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=


I got me a Lynskey R240 on ebay last year for $699 although I have seen them go even lower. Even though I had 5 bikes at the time I just couldn't pass that up


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

DaveG said:


> I got me a Lynskey R240 on ebay last year for $699 although I have seen them go even lower. Even though I had 5 bikes at the time I just couldn't pass that up


I'm really tempted but I just downsized my bike garage. Will likely wait till/ if I lose 20 lbs or more then reward myself but TBH Carl Strong will likely get my money.


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

kiwisimon said:


> I'm really tempted but I just downsized my bike garage. Will likely wait till/ if I lose 20 lbs or more then reward myself but TBH Carl Strong will likely get my money.


 That's a great idea. I had been worrying about how to explain to my wife that after buying two bikes this year and one early next year ... I obviously needed another one.

I will set a goal of maybe 35 lbs (down to the lowest since i got over my worst health issues and got back in shape, before health issues and gaining 35 lbs) or to make it really sweet, 50 lbs. if I go to her with that proposal, I think she will fall for it.

Of course, the gamble is that I may never get another bike then .....

I saw a thread about Strong frames ... guess I will check them out too. But no matter how little I weigh, I have a pretty solid $2000-per-bike budget. Hope Strong isn't also steep.


----------



## commuterbik (Sep 27, 2017)

kiwisimon said:


> I sold off 5 bikes this year. I got rid of the carbon fibre ones and kept two. Hand made steel and Ti bikes. I have a third I'm playing around with to see how cheap and light a hillclimb bike I can make from used 1990's parts. It's aluminium.


My first two bikes were steel, that was in the 90's. Ever since I've only had aluminium. Just recently bought a steel bike that has traditional road geometry and it brought back memories of how I felt riding my steel bikes in the 90's. A good chromo frame with today's advanced components is a very nice ride.


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

commuterbik said:


> A good chromo frame with today's advanced components is a very nice ride.


 A cheap chromo/mild steel frame with a mix of old and new is a nice ride. I have an old Impala .... You have a new Cadillac CTS-V.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Maelochs said:


> A cheap chromo/mild steel frame with a mix of old and new is a nice ride. I have an old Impala .... You have a new Cadillac CTS-V.


Why a cheap chromo/mild steel frame when there are so many high end steel frames on the market? E-bay is awash with either used or NOS '80's and '90's steel frames that can be had for a good price and built up with modern components giving up nothing but a little weight.

I've had DeRosa since the early '80's that has been updated with a 10spd group that is a joy to ride. I hung it on a hook and replaced it with a carbon bike that I was purchased and was riding before I realized that the improvement that I was experiencing was the modern group more than the carbon frame. When I updated the DeRosa with the modern group the carbon Ridley was retired, and not only did the DeRosa go back into service with the new group, but a new Della Santa(steel) was purchased and the group on the Ridley was removed and put on the Della Santa.

Check out some of the bikes in the Retro-Classic forum.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

velodog said:


> Why a cheap chromo/mild steel frame when there are so many high end steel frames on the market? E-bay is awash with either used or NOS '80's and '90's steel frames that can be had for a good price and built up with modern components giving up nothing but a little weight.
> 
> I've had DeRosa since the early '80's that has been updated with a 10spd group that is a joy to ride. I hung it on a hook and replaced it with a carbon bike that I was purchased and was riding before I realized that the improvement that I was experiencing was the modern group more than the carbon frame. When I updated the DeRosa with the modern group the carbon Ridley was retired, and not only did the DeRosa go back into service with the new group, but a new Della Santa(steel) was purchased and the group on the Ridley was removed and put on the Della Santa.
> 
> Check out some of the bikes in the Retro-Classic forum.


I agree. You can find some great deal on classic older steel bikes if you are patient. I have a bought a few of my steel frames on Ebay in the window after Christmas. This is a time when people dont seem to bid (probably because they're broke) and you can grab the best deals


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

velodog said:


> Why a cheap chromo/mild steel frame when there are so many high end steel frames on the market?


 Because I already own the frame. I bought it at a yard sale for bout $35 when it was about five years old, a bike someone had bought and never ridden. A cleaned it up, rode it a bunch, rebuilt it, beat it to death, and finally a few years ago, stripped it to bare metal and started over.

Sure, i could drop a couple/few hundred on a lighter steel frame ... and if someone had been selling a better bike at that yard sale thee decades ago i could have bought a better bike to start with.

Back then if it had been $60 i would have had to pass .... I got all my parts from bikes I picked out of the trash, so even $35 was a lot .... but the bike was in tremendous condition.

Ten-speed Tiagra except for the original crankset, Vuelta wheels .... 

I honestly cannot believe I would enjoy a much better frame that much more ... sure, it could save some weight, but i have light bikes. 

The biggest issue is ... what would I do with the old frame if I upgraded? Trash it? Sell it for scrap? Nobody is going to give me any money for a 1984 Raleigh Olympian frame.

It's's mine, I own it, I ride it. Seems right.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

putting some modern brifter group on a classic steel frame not a bad idea at all. just not keen on the idea of going back to a quill stem, finding the right compatc bars for the stem etc. I have a museum piece 80s bike, but with 80s campy parts, it is kind of a, non comfy chore to use other than eroica event once a year

think if I wanted a modern steel bike, I'd just get a Ritchey road frame. price is not bad at all, and modern fitment. though a ti lynskey frame costs similar, or less


----------



## commuterbik (Sep 27, 2017)

Maelochs said:


> Because I already own the frame. I bought it at a yard sale for bout $35 when it was about five years old, a bike someone had bought and never ridden. A cleaned it up, rode it a bunch, rebuilt it, beat it to death, and finally a few years ago, stripped it to bare metal and started over.
> 
> Sure, i could drop a couple/few hundred on a lighter steel frame ... and if someone had been selling a better bike at that yard sale thee decades ago i could have bought a better bike to start with.
> 
> ...


I think classic frames make great wall art. Many of the vintage steel frames are such beautiful works of craftsmanship. Of course you have to have the space to display it, which is problematic for most.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

commuterbik said:


> I think classic frames make great wall art. Many of the vintage steel frames are such beautiful works of craftsmanship. Of course you have to have the space to display it, which is problematic for most.


If these frames are art, they're ridable art. Sure they're wonderful to look at, but the true beauty of them is in the riding. Ultimately bicycles are tools, built to be used and they deserve more than to be hung on the wall and admired, they should be ridden and enjoyed for what they are, not what they look like.


----------



## commuterbik (Sep 27, 2017)

velodog said:


> If these frames are art, they're ridable art. Sure they're wonderful to look at, but the true beauty of them is in the riding. Ultimately bicycles are tools, built to be used and they deserve more than to be hung on the wall and admired, they should be ridden and enjoyed for what they are, not what they look like.


I definitely agree. A great frame should make someone happy. However, if a frame is a one of a kind classic work of master craftsmanship and can't be replaced, it might be better to keep it safe. Just depends on the owner I guess.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

commuterbik said:


> I definitely agree. A great frame should make someone happy. However, if a frame is a one of a kind classic work of master craftsmanship and can't be replaced, it might be better to keep it safe. Just depends on the owner I guess.


Keep it safe from what?

That craftsman built the bike to be ridden and it should be. I just saw a youtube video of a WW2 bomber, one of only 2 existing left, being flown. Pretty impressive stuff, and if an aircraft with that provenance can be taken into the sky and enjoyed, surely a bicycle, no matter how special, can be ridden and enjoyed.
The worth of the bicycle is how it handles, how it responds to the cyclists inputs, the pilots pedal stroke. It's true worth is the joy that it brings to the cyclist.

If all that's wanted is something to hang on the wall, buy a painting or, better yet, an original Rebour drawing that can be framed, hung on the wall, and visually admired.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

commuterbik said:


> I definitely agree. A great frame should make someone happy. However, if a frame is a one of a kind classic work of master craftsmanship and can't be replaced, it might be better to keep it safe. Just depends on the owner I guess.


I just think of bikes like weiners, just looking at it and polishing it makes some people happy, but using it probably puts a smile on everyones' face. YMMV.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

kiwisimon said:


> I just think of bikes like weiners, just looking at it and polishing it makes some people happy, but using it probably puts a smile on everyones' face. YMMV.


Actually, if one is brought up "right", looking at it and polishing it can make one just feel guilty.


----------



## commuterbik (Sep 27, 2017)

velodog said:


> Keep it safe from what?
> 
> That craftsman built the bike to be ridden and it should be. I just saw a youtube video of a WW2 bomber, one of only 2 existing left, being flown. Pretty impressive stuff, and if an aircraft with that provenance can be taken into the sky and enjoyed, surely a bicycle, no matter how special, can be ridden and enjoyed.
> The worth of the bicycle is how it handles, how it responds to the cyclists inputs, the pilots pedal stroke. It's true worth is the joy that it brings to the cyclist.
> ...


Keep it safe from getting stolen. I would be pissed if someone stole my everyday bike, but I can buy a new one just like it. But if someone stole my classic bike that meant a lot to me, it would be like losing a really good friend.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

velodog said:


> Actually, if one is brought up "right", looking at it and polishing it can make one just feel guilty.


Fortunately I was brought up "wrong" then.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

commuterbik said:


> Keep it safe from getting stolen. I would be pissed if someone stole my everyday bike, but I can buy a new one just like it. But if someone stole my classic bike that meant a lot to me, it would be like losing a really good friend.


If your primary concern is theft, then just use that bike on rides where you don't have to park it mid-ride and ride your "everyday bike" otherwise. Or just get a decent lock and don't ride in areas where theft is prevalent.

And would you insist your really good friend stay in your livingroom just so they stay safe from harm?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

commuterbik said:


> I think classic frames make great wall art. Many of the vintage steel frames are such beautiful works of craftsmanship. Of course you have to have the space to display it, which is problematic for most.


Heck, build it up into a bike and admire it there on the wall. On a fine Spring day, take it down and ride it! A great bike is ultimately appreciated as art in motion!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> If these frames are art, they're ridable art. Sure they're wonderful to look at, but the true beauty of them is in the riding. Ultimately bicycles are tools, built to be used and they deserve more than to be hung on the wall and admired, they should be ridden and enjoyed for what they are, not what they look like.


Exactly. 

Would a dedicated violinist not play a Stradivarius if he had the chance?


----------



## Maelochs (Aug 22, 2016)

I could put a bike on my wall ... I’d just have to get rid of my wife. I might trade her in for a bike I could ride ... not one I was only going to look at. (She won’t read this, right?)

I have seen wall displays for bikes that really looked good---some using wooden supports, some using old handlebars .... but the way my mind works ... if I have enough quality parts to make art, I have enough parts to build another rideable bike. Sorry, Art. 

As for losing a bike to theft .... simple. I don’t lock up a bike I am not willing to lose except for extreme emergencies.

I have a really cheesy cable and lock for my Workswell .... it weighs almost nothing and a dedicated thief could saw through it with a steak knife. But .... the only time I would use it was if I was stricken with dehydration or diarrhea in a place where I could not find an outside faucet or a place to hide. Otherwise, I would not leave the bike.

My commuter and grocery bikes get a big, ugly, heavy chain and lock. Obviously it won’t stop a pro thief ... but no pro thief would bother with either bike.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

I found this today after wanting one for nearly 25 years. My size any nary a scratch or mark on it. 

But I passed on it. 1inch steerer too much of a pain. At the time I bought a Kestrel and fitted it out with Super Record for my private bike. That frame was still being raced as recently as 5 yrs ago by beginning riders in NZ.


----------



## commuterbik (Sep 27, 2017)

kiwisimon said:


> I found this today after wanting one for nearly 25 years. My size any nary a scratch or mark on it.
> 
> But I passed on it. 1inch steerer too much of a pain. At the time I bought a Kestrel and fitted it out with Super Record for my private bike. That frame was still being raced as recently as 5 yrs ago by beginning riders in NZ.


Is that a steel frame? Parts of it look carbon.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

kiwisimon said:


> I found this today after wanting one for nearly 25 years. My size any nary a scratch or mark on it.
> 
> But I passed on it. 1inch steerer too much of a pain. At the time I bought a Kestrel and fitted it out with Super Record for my private bike. That frame was still being raced as recently as 5 yrs ago by beginning riders in NZ.


Not sure I understand the "1" steerer a pain" part. Can't you just use a shim?


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

commuterbik said:


> Is that a steel frame? Parts of it look carbon.


It's Carbon tubes, it's got carbon lugs. here is a bit about it. http://www.calfeedesign.com/wp-cont...ort-Feature-Calfee-Design-and-Greg-Lemond.pdf



DaveG said:


> Not sure I understand the "1" steerer a pain" part. Can't you just use a shim?


Threaded headset. I could put in a adapter but the PIA factor is still there. I will let it go.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

just use a quill stem with that. with appropriate bars to fit. too easy. like they did here updating an old Colnago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaGq-S42gQg&t=407s


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

BCSaltchucker said:


> just use a quill stem with that. with appropriate bars to fit. too easy. like they did here updating an old Colnago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaGq-S42gQg&t=407s


I could do that but TBH I really like my Deda 35mm bars. Not doing to work with a quill stem. I am looking at later model Calfees now.


----------



## commuterbik (Sep 27, 2017)

kiwisimon said:


> It's Carbon tubes, it's got carbon lugs. here is a bit about it. http://www.calfeedesign.com/wp-cont...ort-Feature-Calfee-Design-and-Greg-Lemond.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Threaded headset. I could put in a adapter but the PIA factor is still there. I will let it go.


Pretty interesting article about the frame. Tell me about the shotgun pellets inside of Greg Lemond's body.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

commuterbik said:


> Pretty interesting article about the frame. Tell me about the shotgun pellets inside of Greg Lemond's body.


An interview where he talks about it.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

velodog said:


> Why a cheap chromo/mild steel frame when there are so many high end steel frames on the market?


i've had a bunch of full chromo mid-level bikes that compare really well with higher end steel:

- '85 fiori napoli (tange)
- '80 shogun 600 (tange)
- '80 trek 414 (ishiwata)
- '79 sekai 4000 (tange)
- '81 motobecane grand jubile (vitus 172)
- and a bunch of early '80s univegas (tange).

i can't say enough for vitus 172 -- really nice balance of weight and strength.

had all those bikes the vintage campy record of my 531 bikes, maybe i would have held onto them longer.

pics in this thread


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

kiwisimon said:


> I could do that but TBH I really like my Deda 35mm bars. Not doing to work with a quill stem. I am looking at later model Calfees now.


makes sense too. It is cool that they have quill->aheadset adaptors now, I never knew that. skinny cinelli bars on my antique bike does dig into the hands unlike modern bars. Gives me 2nd thoughts about the old bike - it hangs on the wall like a museum piece awaiting an eroica event, but could be ridden regularly if I updated it with modern campy and quill adaptor.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

BCSaltchucker said:


> makes sense too. It is cool that they have quill->aheadset adaptors now, I never knew that. skinny cinelli bars on my antique bike does dig into the hands unlike modern bars. Gives me 2nd thoughts about the old bike - it hangs on the wall like a museum piece awaiting an eroica event, but could be ridden regularly if I updated it with modern campy and quill adaptor.


I used a quill adapter when I upgraded the bars on my old-school bike. They work just fine although it adds a bit of weight. Plus it still allows you to easily lower/raise the bars like in olden times


----------

