Originally Posted by
Redskin8006
I love these kind of posts so I figure I'll start one. I'm in the market for a new road bike. My budget is around $3K. I'm riding an entry-level aluminum bike. I'd like to upgrade. I haven't started test riding, but I think my next bike will be steel, Ti, or carbon. I was leaning toward steel. Seems like it's the strongest and most durable frame material from Clyde's perspective (and at a reasonable cost). It's hard to stay off the carbon bandwagon, though. Despite concerns, it sounds like there are tons of Clydes (no pun intended) on carbon frames with no problems. And it's obvious that the mainstream brands are going carbon. The more research I do, however, Ti seems to rise to the top. Sounds like it's the best of both worlds - durability, strength and comfort - but at a higher cost. Just wondering if any Clydes out there have any strong opinions one way or the other.
If you're really a Clyde upgrading the bike isn't really going to affect your riding all that much. A fat human engine isn't going to get the performance limit out of your current bike, you don't need a better bike, you need a better body.
That being said if a new bike is the thing that will motivate you to ride, lose weight, and be healthier, go for it! Make the changes.
However, forget steel.
Steel is cheap. Steel bikes are cheap to manufacture. They don't make good bikes. The whole 'steel is real' nonsense is more about the history of Italian cycling (and Italian steel) than the quality of the bikes.
Competitive road cycling teams don't use steel bikes. They are, as a rule, heavy, flexy, inefficient, and they are very unpredictable under heavy riders when cornering on fast descents as the tubing flexes. Cycling will always have the snob appeal of the vintage De Rosas, Olmos, Colnagos, Cinellis, Masis, et. al. Usually these are dripping with Campy components. In the US the older Lemond nameplate, Independent, Masi (again), and Trek made (or marketed) very good steel bikes.
However, the funny thing is that what is desirable, and what is actually 'good' are two different things.
A classic Cannondale 3.0 frame was the lightest frame on the planet when it made its debut. It set the standard for being the stiffest frame ever measured on the Bicycling 'tarantula' frame testing jig.
If performance was truly your benchmark I'd find a classic Klein or Cannondale aluminum bike. The funny thing is that an '89 Cannondale 3.0 frame is still a better frame today than all but a handful of multi thousand dollar Ti or Carbon frames. Throw a modern carbon fork and carbon seatpost on it, spec it out with your dream wheelset and components.
The frame and wheelset are the bike. Trust me, they aren't building frames in Taiwan in 2009 to the quality that they were building them in the 80's and 90's while they were 'Made in the USA'.
Buying a modern bike is like choosing what nameplate you want for your Taiwanese/Chinese frame. The pinnacle of cycling quality passed during the late eighties, early nineties for most companies except at the extreme high end.
If you can afford Ti, and you can find a build with a tubing set that makes sense for your weight and riding style, go for it.
Other than that look backwards not forwards.
Buying a bike today is like buying a car in the 1970s. You don't want to.