# a great old steel frame vs a modern new carbon frame



## gimmie_a_run (Jun 27, 2012)

I am back to regular cycling after about a 15-20yr hiatus. I love riding my 25 year old Trek 400 with reynolds 531 frame and perfectly adjusted but dated components. It is smooth and comfortable and unless a person in much better shape zips by me I think it is fast.

I am interested in a new bike to get the sti type shifters and many other modern goodies.

What will the real difference be in a ~2000 bike with carbon frame etc? Will it be faster?, smoother? What are the real benefits? Should I think about some of the currently available steel frames from firms like Jamis, Gunnar, Surley, etc? Will the aluminum frames really feel alot harsher and less comfortable? I routinely go for 40 to 80 mile rides on weekends so I would not want a less comfortable frame. In the past I would use one bike for both 5 hr club centuries and 500 mile loaded camping tours. Do any of the new machines have this versatility?

Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thankyou


----------



## medimond (Apr 26, 2009)

Go to the LBS and take a test ride and determine for yourself if it's the real deal.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

You can't beat a modern high quality steel frame. Of the three frames you mention, Gunnar is the only one made with top of the line steel tubes. The others use a heavier tubeset, and the frames will end up weighing a pound more than the Gunnar. Aluminum and Carbon frames can weigh 1-1/2 pounds less than the Gunnar, but the Carbon ones will cost a lot more, and the Aluminum ones won't feel quite as nice as a good steel frame. (but a 2 pound Aluminum frame is much better than the old school Cannonwhales)
.
.
.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

Check out the Salsa Casseroll and the Gunnar Sport. Carbon will save you about a pound compared to a frame like the Gunnar. Most of the "ride quality" is gonna come from fit/geometry and your tire selection.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

gimmie_a_run said:


> What will the real difference be in a ~2000 bike with carbon frame etc? Will it be faster?, smoother? What are the real benefits? Should I think about some of the currently available steel frames from firms like Jamis, Gunnar, Surley, etc? Will the aluminum frames really feel alot harsher and less comfortable? I routinely go for 40 to 80 mile rides on weekends so I would not want a less comfortable frame. In the past I would use one bike for both 5 hr club centuries and 500 mile loaded camping tours. Do any of the new machines have this versatility?


You might find this an interesting site regardless of your bike purchase.

Tour de France Statistics

What it shows in terms of speed is that over the last 25 years the average speed of the TdF has increased about 3km/Hour, or 8%. Almost all of that was from changes in wheels however. From the point that carbon fiber bikes became common ( ~ 1999) until now, the average speed hasn't changed at all. There were also 2 years where aluminum was the most common material. It had no significant effect.

One may question whether TdF-level riders represent the average sport-cyclist, and Cycle Sport magazine attempted to find out if this was the case. They had experienced racers (essentially U.S. Cat 2's and 3's) ride several TdF stages on both pristine and maintained 1980's era bikes/wheels/shifting and modern carbon frames with modern wheels.

These riders were over 3km/hour faster on the modern bikes. The interesting finding was that virtually all of the difference occurred when going down hill. Not only were the wheels faster, every rider commented on how much better the bikes handled at high speeds. More comfortable, confidence inspiring, safer, faster.

That matches my experience. CF may not make you faster, but it makes going fast significantly easier.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

icsloppl said:


> The interesting finding was that virtually all of the difference occurred when going down hill. Not only were the wheels faster, every rider commented on how much better the bikes handled at high speeds. More comfortable, confidence inspiring, safer, faster.
> 
> That matches my experience. CF may not make you faster, but it makes going fast significantly easier.


Lies, damn lies and statistics...? Don't doubt that modern frames aren't better designed than 25 years ago, but what about a modern steel bike against a modern carbon bike? I'd rate a Colnago Master or Pegoretti Marcelo against any carbon bike any day of the week.

(Btw, great website and info, thanks for sharing).


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

You haven't told us which model of Jamis steel bike. The Eclipse uses Reynolds 853, Gunnar uses last I heard True Temper OX Platinum on the Roade; Surley uses an unbranded Taiwanese 4130 tubeset. Both 853 and OX tubesets will be lighter and stronger then the 4130. Supposedly OX resists rust better then 853, but I have Reynolds 531 that is 22 years old without a spec of rust on or in it, so not sure if the rust thing is all that important as long as you take care of it. Tensile Strength wise the OX Platinum has a KSI rating of 190 to 217 depending on who tells the story; the 853 between 177 to 220 again depending on who tells the story. So the 853 and the OX is nearly identical even in weight, you could never tell the difference between the two.

If your looking at a different Jamis like the Quest it uses Reynolds 631, at that point the Gunnar with the OX is the winner by a healthy margin. 

In a nut shell your not going to go wrong with either the Jamis or the Gunnar, so pick out the one you like the looks of the best and ride the crap out of it.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

gimmie_a_run said:


> I am back to regular cycling after about a 15-20yr hiatus. I love riding my 25 year old Trek 400 with reynolds 531 frame and perfectly adjusted but dated components. It is smooth and comfortable and unless a person in much better shape zips by me I think it is fast.
> 
> I am interested in a new bike to get the sti type shifters and many other modern goodies.
> 
> ...





icsloppl said:


> You might find this an interesting site regardless of your bike purchase.
> 
> Tour de France Statistics
> 
> ...


For the pros the doping and better training methods have pushed the speeds higher over the last 25 years.

I have not seen the Cycle Sport magazine test, but I was racing 25 years ago, and yes, most of those bikes were kind of crappy going down hills fast and brakes were not nearly as good as they are today. After a few years racing twitchy, flexy Italian stuff, I opted for a very beefy custom frame which was MUCH better going downhill. There were other bikes like the MAX tube Merckx frames, which were super solid descenders. I was always willing to pay a slight weight penalty going up to relax on the way down. I'm sure the new carbon stuff is great. For some reason, it doesn't interest me at all.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Henry Chinaski said:


> For the pros the doping and better training methods have pushed the speeds higher over the last 25 years.
> 
> I have not seen the Cycle Sport magazine test, but I was racing 25 years ago, and yes, most of those bikes were kind of crappy going down hills fast and brakes were not nearly as good as they are today. After a few years racing twitchy, flexy Italian stuff, I opted for a very beefy custom frame which was MUCH better going downhill. There were other bikes like the MAX tube Merckx frames, which were super solid descenders. I was always willing to pay a slight weight penalty going up to relax on the way down. I'm sure the new carbon stuff is great. For some reason, it doesn't interest me at all.


That report also is not telling you that the courses have gotten easier.

Carbon does not interest me in the least, and I will never buy a carbon frame, but that's just me. If I want a real light weight bike I'll go with titanium.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

gimmie_a_run said:


> I am back to regular cycling after about a 15-20yr hiatus. I love riding my 25 year old Trek 400 with reynolds 531 frame and perfectly adjusted but dated components. It is smooth and comfortable and unless a person in much better shape zips by me I think it is fast.
> 
> I am interested in a new bike to get the sti type shifters and many other modern goodies.
> 
> ...


The most important thing is stiffness. The stiffness of a carbon frame makes it more fun to ride and handle very well because there is no flex. They are also lighter but as a Clyde I don't care that much about that .


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

froze said:


> That report also is not telling you that the courses have gotten easier.
> 
> Carbon does not interest me in the least, and I will never buy a carbon frame, but that's just me. If I want a real light weight bike I'll go with titanium.


I wouldn't mind something like a Colnago C40, but with a steel fork. :thumbsup:


----------



## Canaboo (Jan 7, 2010)

Frame flex depending on perception of it and actual demonstrated flex by applying pressure seem to give wildly different results.
A frame must be flexing somewhere in order to be compliant.
I don't quite understand how seat stays or a top tube can flex without the other tubes actually also giving to a degree.
Interestingly cutting up a carbon bike and squeezing the tube edges with two fingers shows the walls collapsing like a plastic bottle.


----------



## rgordin (Oct 22, 2010)

I had a 1984 steel frame bike built by a well-known American builder and one day, I noticed that it was beginning to shake. I looked at my odometer and I was going a little of 40 mph down a hill. I had not realized I was going that fast and slowed. The vibrations frightened me.

I then acquired a 1993 steel bike, also built by a well-known American builder. I don't think the steel was significantly different. Same size tubing and each was lugged and hand built. But the 1993 bike was just better in its ride, feel, fit and integrity. One day, I found myself facing a steep downhill and, remembering my experience on the 1984 bike (which I still owned), braced myself and kept my hand ready at the brakes. Much to my surprise, the bike was smooth with no vibrations at over 50 mph. It made me want to pedal and go faster - and I have a fear of roller coasters and similar rides.

So I question whether it is the material or the integrity of the build when I read comments about an older steel bike's performance on a descent. By the way, I put new wheels on the 1993 bike a year ago, and that made a noticeable improvement in its performance.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

in general a $2000 carbon bike will have a lighter frame than any steel frame he'll be able to find in that price range. Finding a steel frame will hard enough. A custom steel frame will be anywhere from $1500+ $2500 plus the cost of the fork, plus drivetrain/wheels/saddle/bars. So manly the difference will be about weight. The goal is to give you the same feel but reduce the weight and effort, seperating you from some money.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

froze said:


> Carbon does not interest me in the least, and I will never buy a carbon frame, but that's just me. If I want a real light weight bike I'll go with titanium.


I used to say that. I've been riding a Moots VaMoots for 10 years or so and before that a Litespeed Vortex. Before that a Klein and a succession of very nice steel and or aluminum bikes. The last carbon bike I owned was a Trek 2500 which I bought in 1988 or so when I was stationed in Hawaii. I'm 52 btw.
For whatever reason curiosity lately got the better of me and I did some test rides of carbon bikes. What struck me was the stiffness which felt great when riding in general and especially when swooping down long fast downhills because it orvide great precise handling. I'm loving the stiffness and carbon frames these days are not nearly as harsh as they used to be. I can even get some road feel out of it rather than it feeling like riding wood as with earlier carbon bikes. 
Basically my plan was to keep the Moots for longer distances and the Giant Defy Advanced 2 I bought for faster rides. But the Giant is so much fun to ride my Moots has been gathering dust.
Having said that if people want a long lasting bike that they don't have to worry about I would still say go with titanium if you can afford it. With my Moots and my Giant I have the best of both worlds.


----------



## Defy (Apr 22, 2012)

Not all carbon bikes are created equal. When I first test rode the base level specialized roubaix, I said..geez there is no feel. Plus, it didn't feel any faster than my lemond Zurich. I thought ok, I guess I'll keep my bike. The endurance geometry was what I was after due to my bad back. 

Then I rode the giant tcr and wow, carbon frame as well but what a difference. It was a rocketship! The acceleration was phenomenal and the bike felt amazing but the geometry was too aggressive. So I settled on the Defy Advanced and gave up some responsiveness for more comfort. And yes, it's a way better bike in every way possible over the Lemond. Faster, smoother, more comfortable etc etc etc.

My point is not all carbon bikes are created equal like I'm sure w steel frames. And everyone will feel differently, to each his own. But, my personal opinion is that there is no contest btw my two bikes. I ended up selling the lemond. No reason for it to collect dust, based on these forum there are a lot of people who prefer steel. 


And at the end of the day, it's just a bicycle. Not a big deal.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

Defy said:


> Not all carbon bikes are created equal. When I first test rode the base level specialized roubaix, I said..geez there is no feel. Plus, it didn't feel any faster than my lemond Zurich. I thought ok, I guess I'll keep my bike. The endurance geometry was what I was after due to my bad back.
> Then I rode the giant tcr and wow, carbon frame as well but what a difference. It was a rocketship! The acceleration was phenomenal and the bike felt amazing but the geometry was too aggressive. So I settled on the Defy Advanced and gave up some responsiveness for more comfort. And yes, it's a way better bike in every way possible over the Lemond. Faster, smoother, more comfortable etc etc etc.


I had exactly the same experience with the Roubaix. I was pretty disappointed in the SL2 Roubaix and even the SL 3. I had to go to the SL 3 Pro Roubaix to get anything like the stiffness of the Giant Defy Advanced 2. and it still wasn't as good even though it cost dramatically more. My Giant does not have the magic carpet ride of my Moots titanium but it is still pretty comfortable considering how stiff it is.


----------



## Defy (Apr 22, 2012)

Makes sense. I have the 2010 defy advanced 2 and it has that magic carpet ride but maybe it's bc it's not as stiff as the 2012 defy advanced 2. I did test ride the 2012 defy advanced 1 during the giant demo days and it felt stiffer, especially the front end. 

Having said that, I'd take the 2012 any day over my 2010. 

FYI, I first looked at the specialized bc their massive marketing and the roubaix is much much more well known than the defy. I didn't even know there was a defy until I told my lbs that the tcr is way too aggressive. Does giant make a plush road bike?


----------



## humble (Nov 23, 2007)

Sir, I was in the same boat about 5 years ago. With my circa 80's bike being with tubulars and spare parts hard to find, I chose to buy a newer low end steel frame and see if I stuck to the riding plan. Bianchi Brava for about $600. I did, and now, five years and two bikes later later, I am convinced of the benefits of the new parts and frames. You can do aluminum, steel or carbon, that is more of a personal preference. Aluminum, I run larger tires, 25+ to soften the ride, but I am able to keep up with all but the fastest of the fast guys. The newer bottom brackets do a much better job transfering power - if you do get a steel frame be sure it has a modern bb and you will be fine. Wheels are another area that technology has improved tremendously. Good luck. /h


----------



## taylor35 (Jun 27, 2012)

I am in a similar situation - I have a 20 Y/O Paramount Series 5 and then started doing more MBing and went to a Fisher 29er. Now doing more road again and looking to upgrade my older RB. I have ridden several - Specialized Rob; Cannondale Supersix, TrekMadone 3 and 4 series. I can tell that these newer bikes have some serious benefits. They seem to climb much easier with the same power exertion. I am in the market too so post what you decide to get please!!


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Henry Chinaski said:


> For the pros the doping and better training methods have pushed the speeds higher over the last 25 years.


Doping's been around a lot longer than 25 years. :wink:

Soviet and other Eastern Bloc Olympians were using PEDs as early as 1964, it's believed. Perhaps even before that. I'm sure word trickled over to the cycling world. Lasse Viren was widely believed to be blood doping during the 72 and 76 Olympics.

But you're correct in noting that training methods have improved remarkably over the last quarter century.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

Also nutrition.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

darwinosx said:


> Also nutrition.


I'd say it's a combination of all three---training, nutrition, and technology. Drugs aid in enabling more intense training, and shorten recovery time. Drugs on their own just make you retain fluids.


----------



## lungdoc (Feb 14, 2005)

In response to the OP question about loaded touring -- I don't think there's any carbon-framed bikes that are designed for loaded touring and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a bike good for club rides and loaded touring. I'd look for a two-bike solution if I were looking for both. I'd recommend looking at a "plush/endurance" carbon frame bike for your club, weekend and century riding and keeping your existing Trek for touring (and possibly commuting/utility use).


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

If the thread title were *a modern new steel frame vs a modern new carbon frame*, I think the OP would get more interesting responses.

For example, Cinelli makes modern new steel frames as well as modern new carbon frames, and these can be compared directly.

*Cinelli XCr stainless steel*
Weight (frame/fork): 1420/350g - size medium *Total=1770g*










*Cinelli top of the line carbon*
Weight frame/fork: 1050g/390g - size medium *Total=1440g, or 330g (0.73 pounds) less than the steel frame with carbon fork.*










*Cinelli's lightest frame*
Weight (frame/fork): 860g/380g - size medium *Total=1240g, or 530g (1.17 pounds) less than the steel frame with carbon fork.*










So there's a 3/4 pound weight penalty for the XCr steel frame compared to the top of the line Pro Best Of carbon frame, and a 1 - 1/5 pound weight penalty for the steel frame compared to the lightest Pro Estrada carbon frame.

This Viner Aeternum with an XCr frame is below the UCI limit at 6.7kg, so the weight penalty of the steel frame is irrelevant in UCI competition. It is light, stiff, and XCr has an elongation of 16% compared to 1% or 2% for carbon fiber reinforced plastic (low elongation is the Achilles heel of CF).

In the end, as others have said ride whatever gets you on your bike.


----------



## Dan333sp (Aug 17, 2010)

That Viner is my new dream bike, thanks for the pic!


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

gimmie_a_run said:


> I am interested in a new bike to get the sti type shifters and many other modern goodies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you're really happy with the ride of your current bike you could just upgrade the group and wheels. That's what I did.

I got the opportunity to get a nice carbon Ridley and enjoyed it for a coupla years before upgrading my DeRosa with a modern group and now the Ridley hardly comes off the hook.


----------



## __PG__ (Jan 25, 2012)

icsloppl said:


> One may question whether TdF-level riders represent the average sport-cyclist, and Cycle Sport magazine attempted to find out if this was the case. They had experienced racers (essentially U.S. Cat 2's and 3's) ride several TdF stages on both pristine and maintained 1980's era bikes/wheels/shifting and modern carbon frames with modern wheels.
> 
> These riders were over 3km/hour faster on the modern bikes. The interesting finding was that virtually all of the difference occurred when going down hill. Not only were the wheels faster, every rider commented on how much better the bikes handled at high speeds. More comfortable, confidence inspiring, safer, faster.
> 
> That matches my experience. CF may not make you faster, but it makes going fast significantly easier.


Interesting. I'm riding a 1994 Reynolds 531 custom frame with Shimano Ultegra STi. Lately I've been test riding a few bikes as I'm looking to buy a new bike. I've ridden a Trek Madone 4 series (with Shimano 105), Giant TCR Advanced and Defy Advanced (with Shimano 105) and a Moots CR (with Dura Ace 7800 with Lightweight Rims).

In my short experiences on these bikes, the main things that immediately struck me was
a) Newer, lighter bikes accelerate so much faster
b) The brakes of a modern groupset are unbelievable
c) Wider handlebars change the way you 'drive' a bike

Points b) and c) are directly related to speed downhill speed, and they are completely independent of frame material.

My old brakes on their old Campagnolog Omega rims are about as effective as Dura-Ace brakes on a carbon braking surface. Modern brakes (even lowly 105) on an alloy rim are unbelievable.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

Don't try to be practical here. Practical is for buying houses, you're looking for a bike. Buy something that interests you, something that you like for your own reasons. 
Using STI or Ergo (should you go Campy), shift levers will make a huge difference in how you ride if you have never used them. Virtutally any new bike is going to be great. Don't buy the lowest end bikes like the GMC from Walmart because the components are kind of oddball and not really easily replaced if they fail, and your chances of that happening (I really would think) will be greater than using something by Shimano. If you need to go cheap look at used bike shops. That's my 2 cents


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

So i will add a different look at this. I have 2 road bikes. A carbon Merlin from 2005 (I know its not the newest stuff) and a couple of years ago I bought a 98 Litespeed Classic full DA for $1200. 
When I went to the Merlin it was from Trek 2300 alu frame. Huge difference. Stiff, lighter, good power transfer yet still comfortable over distance. Nice bike over all and have hit 55mph going down on it
The Litespeed is an older bike and nit as stiff for climbing but otherwise just as good in comfort and downhill. Due to it being a little flexy COMPARED TO THE MERLIN, it doesn't climb as well but hasn't stopped me from climbing Mt Tam in San Fran or Loveland Pass in Keystone, CO. Meaning its still very good at climbing.
I know the discussion is about steel vs carbon but my point is that ride quality is largely determined by build and geometry and not as much by the material. I have seen plenty of steel bikes under UCI limits but carbon can always be a little lighter. Also, as mentioned if you want 1 do it all bike for touring as well as riding you need metal (steel or ti ). Can't get a good touring carbon bike due to loads...at least I haven't seen one yet.
I find myself coveting a custom steel bike of late and since I just ride for pleasure..no races I am not interested in modern cookie cutter carbon frames that cost as much if not more than custom steel or Ti. I am not knocking carbon, I just rather have a unique and or more comfort that will outlast my lifetime type bike as opposed to another carbon bike


----------



## stumpbumper (Jan 22, 2011)

I have a carbon-fiber Cervelo R3 and a steel LeMond Croix de Fer. Weight difference is about 3.5 pounds. I don't race, but do average riding 5,000-6,000 miles per year, most of it solo. Prior to buying the CF bike I assumed my average speed would increase a bit but it is exactly the same with either bike and that includes routes with miles of climbing. Both are geared the same and both have near-identical Mavic Ksyrium SL wheels. 

I sometimes alternate between the two bikes, riding one this week and the other next week. I have ridden a number of centuries on both and find overall comfort about equal but their rides do differ. The CF bike seems to absorb a bit more road buzz while the steel bike does a better job of smooting out undulations in the road, probably because it is more flexible. CF seems to corner a bit better at high speed but steel is not far behind.

I figured the CF bike would have more "wow" factor and for a awhile it did, but since just about everyone in my area now has one and very few ride steel, it is just the opposite. 

I love both and would hate to have to choose between the two. .


----------



## stumpbumper (Jan 22, 2011)

I have a carbon-fiber Cervelo R3 and a steel LeMond Croix de Fer. Weight difference is about 3.5 pounds. I don't race, but do average riding 5,000-6,000 miles per year, most of it solo. Prior to buying the CF bike I assumed my average speed would increase a bit but it is exactly the same with either bike and that includes routes with miles of climbing. Both are geared the same and both have near-identical Mavic Ksyrium SL wheels. 

I sometimes alternate between the two bikes, riding one this week and the other next week. I have ridden a number of centuries on both and find overall comfort about equal but their rides do differ. The CF bike seems to absorb a bit more road buzz while the steel bike does a better job of smooting out undulations in the road, probably because it is more flexible. CF seems to corner a bit better at high speed but steel is not far behind.

I figured the CF bike would have more "wow" factor and for a awhile it did, but since just about everyone in my area now has one and very few ride steel, it is just the opposite. 

I love both and would hate to have to choose between the two. .


----------

