Originally Posted by
cyccommute
You took offense. It was meant mostly as a joke but I have been told the things I said more times than I can count. I’ve been told that steel is fixable and aluminum isn’t. I have direct experience with trying to fix steel. I’ve seen what happens when others try to fix steel. You seem...and most everyone else...seems to think that steel is “easy” to fix without any knowledge whatsoever of the material.
Steel is fixable. Doesn't mean it's easy. I've been saying you need a skilled craftsman for it while you've been going on about the village smithy. Aluminum can be fixed too but if you weld it the resulting joint will lose its temper and more than 50 % of its strength. So you fix a part that broke AND you lose strength at that same place. It's not optimal.
I’m not attacking people who don’t agree with me...perhaps you should look at your own posts as well...I’m trying to convince people that what they think is true, isn’t. Aluminum touring bikes are nonexistent because people won’t tour on aluminum because they think it will fail them and can’t be fixed. And aluminum touring bikes aren’t “nonexistent”. There are a lot of them being made even now. Lots of gravel bikes are touring oriented and many of them are aluminum. And there was a whole company that made them for nearly 30 years.
So what are those posts about religious steel fanatics about? Also, quote a post of mine where I attack aluminum riders. Do it. I'm very interested in what you find.
Find me an aluminum touring bike. When I google touring bike I get lots of steel and not that much aluminum.
Gravel bikes are typically light touring at best, like the Salsa Vaya. But then you can tour on a 7kg road bike if you don't carry much. But I would not get a lightweight gravel bike for 4 pannier touring even if it was made of aluminum. I already tried that with an aluminum cyclocross bike and 2 panniers and it wasn't good enough to stick.
Have you ever tried to have a broken bike fixed? Do you have any idea of what is involved.
I know exactly what is involved. I've done enough welding to know I wouldn't try it myself.
Sorry but I’m not buying. I’ve owned lots of steel bikes and lots of aluminum bikes. I’ve never run across one that is “noodly”. I have run across noodly steel frames...in fact, that legendary “soft” ride of steel is because the bike is flexible. I’ve also never experienced death wobbles on any aluminum bike but have had it occurs on steel. Is your experience more “valid” than mine?
Ah yes the differences in ride quality are something I like to call design choices. As in you can design a frame to have different properties depending on what sized tubes you use for example. The aluminum bike I mentioned I have while not as noodly as its predecessor model is still pretty flexible when pedaled angry. The Trek FX I used to have would not support panniers at all before getting all S-shaped.
As for creaking, it’s a poor mechanic who blames his tools. Creaks and clicks are mechanical problems. If they bother you, fix them. Steel frames can be just as creaky and clicky if you don’t address the problem.
I did fix them. Eventually. It was most times the seat post or seat collar but also sometimes the quick release being too tight or too loose, the fork being welded only from the bottom so it requires epoxy in the crown race seating area, tubus rack apparently being too stiff and causing constant popping noises, bottom bracket woes with BB30, stem steerer interface issues etc. But nothing so far with steel.
I know about the advancements of steel. I also know about the advancements in aluminum. The advancements in aluminum in both metallurgy and in frame building have far outstripped those of steel.
So now I'm confused. You say that aluminum is more advanced than steel but so far the only thing that's really more advanced in aluminum is hydroforming. Other than that we're talking alloys which are still being developed in both aluminum and steel. How readily those come into play in bicycles is another matter. As far as I know bike frames are still being made of 6061 and rarely some 7000-series aluminum alloys which have been around for a while now.
As for playing the same tricks with steel, yes, you could make the tubes the same diameter as aluminum ones. You’d end up with a bike that is heavier and punishingly stiff. You could thin the walls but the walls of steel are already thin and thinning them enough to keep the weight down would result in tubes that would be fragile and very easily dented.
Well the funny thing is that to achieve the same results you don't actually need to make the tubes the same diameter. Steel is stiffer than aluminum you know? And also that's not the point. You seem to think that steel frames are still made of thin tubing whereas in reality modern steel frames can be made with varying diameter tubing and multiple inside/outside butting tubes as well as different geometric shapes. It's not as pronounced as hydroformed aluminum but then again, it does not necessarily have to be.
Yes, I’m sure...for me. I have no personal interest in steel frames. I don’t own one anymore and I won’t own one again. Just not interested.
Way to keep an open mind and all that. I'd say i'm the more open of us because I do actually ride aluminum too.
As for materials, Reynolds 853 is a chromium molybdenum alloy of steel.
Yes? And?
Tell you what, let’s stop this beating around the bush. You go your way and I’ll go mine. You’ll never convince me of buying a steel bike and I’ve no interest in trying to change your mind. And I’m tiring of your constant attempts at taking insult where none is given.
Perhaps you should try to modulate your writing in such a way that it is not apparently offensive. It's not that hard to do. Just leaving out the sweeping generalizations of steel riders being idiotic fanatics will do wonders.