Originally Posted by Koyote

Please explain. To my knowledge, the last ten years have brought no advancements in the metallurgy of bike frames nor in the methods used for assembling them.

Originally Posted by Mulberry20

Not sure I would agree. The Columbus XCR tube set is fairly new. It is the only seamless, stainless steel tube set available and it is lighter and stronger than any metal tub set. Walls can be a thin as .4 mm. The Cicli Barco reviewd in the link is 17.7 lbs with Barco’s in house stainless fork. A carbon fork would probably bring it to flat 17. That bike is spec’d to the gills and came in at 12k. A new Trek Domane weighs 20lbs.

Honestly, would you pick a 12k Giant, Specialzed or Trek over that gorgeous, custom, handmade Italian beauty?

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/reviews/66...rco-xcr-review

Originally Posted by Mulberry20

Not sure I would agree. The Columbus XCR tube set is fairly new. It is the only seamless, stainless steel tube set available and it is lighter and stronger than any metal tub set. Walls can be a thin as .4 mm. The Cicli Barco reviewd in the link is 17.7 lbs with Barco’s in house stainless fork. A carbon fork would probably bring it to flat 17. That bike is spec’d to the gills and came in at 12k. A new Trek Domane weighs 20lbs.

Honestly, would you pick a 12k Giant, Specialzed or Trek over that gorgeous, custom, handmade Italian beauty?

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/reviews/66...rco-xcr-review

Originally Posted by Mulberry20

Not sure I would agree. The Columbus XCR tube set is fairly new. It is the only seamless, stainless steel tube set available and it is lighter and stronger than any metal tub set. Walls can be a thin as .4 mm. The Cicli Barco reviewd in the link is 17.7 lbs with Barco’s in house stainless fork. A carbon fork would probably bring it to flat 17. That bike is spec’d to the gills and came in at 12k. A new Trek Domane weighs 20lbs.

Honestly, would you pick a 12k Giant, Specialzed or Trek over that gorgeous, custom, handmade Italian beauty?

Originally Posted by genejockey

Note - I have two steel bikes and two CF. The two steels are in a three-way tie with one of the CFs for 'Favorite Bike'. Each one has the edge for favorite till I ride one of the others. The other CF bike? Close Fourth. But definitely fourth.

Originally Posted by Mulberry20

High end steel frames are actually lighter than carbon frames.

Originally Posted by Mulberry20

The Cicli Barco reviewd in the link is 17.7 lbs ... A new Trek Domane weighs 20lbs.

Originally Posted by Mulberry20

Not sure I would agree. The Columbus XCR tube set is fairly new. It is the only seamless, stainless steel tube set available and it is lighter and stronger than any metal tub set. Walls can be a thin as .4 mm. The Cicli Barco reviewd in the link is 17.7 lbs with Barco’s in house stainless fork. A carbon fork would probably bring it to flat 17. That bike is spec’d to the gills and came in at 12k. A new Trek Domane weighs 20lbs.

Honestly, would you pick a 12k Giant, Specialzed or Trek over that gorgeous, custom, handmade Italian beauty?

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/reviews/66...rco-xcr-review

Originally Posted by Point

For the record, allRivendell frames are steel

Originally Posted by yo vanilla

I think I'd love to have another 4130 chromoly frame again!!

Originally Posted by Trakhak

I'm struggling to make sense of those three sentences. What trade wars? How did they pertain to the near-disappearance of steel frames from the marketplace? What studies? Has anyone else come across such reports of steel bikes being "vastly superior in downhill speed" (not solely because of increased weight, presumably)? What evidence is there that "major manufacturers were poised to shift the majority of their production to steel"?

The more likely reason that steel frames effectively disappeared from the part of the market served by bike shops is simple: aluminum frames cost no more to produce than high-tensile steel frames and substantially less than frames built of better steels. That's a product manager's no-brainer. And now aluminum bikes are slowly being supplanted by carbon bikes at increasingly lower price points.

Another likely factor: warranty costs. The lifetime frame and fork warranty that used to be offered on all steel adult bikes sold in U.S. bike stores (a policy that was introduced by Schwinn as a marketing strategy many decades ago to promote the superior durability of their frames, forcing other companies reluctantly to follow suit, but that's another story) began to be rolled back; as other and more exotic frame materials came to be accepted by bike purchasers, the companies must have figured that it was a golden opportunity to change that policy.

Which reminds me of what I was told by a Trek sales rep back a couple of years after they'd begun producing their first aluminum frames. I'd asked what effect introducing the aluminum bikes had had on business. He replied that they were saving money because the number of warranty claims for defective aluminum frames was substantially lower than the steel frame warranty claim rate.

By the way, about descending on steel frames: a few years ago, a European cycling magazine rounded up several steel racing bikes from the golden era of the late '80s or early '90s and persuaded several young amateur racers, all of them used to racing on high-end carbon bikes, to ride in the Alps on the steel bikes and then printed an article reporting their impressions of the bikes. In short, all of them enjoyed riding the bikes, but they also said that the bikes were a little too unpredictable in high-speed descending. I feel the same way; the increased torsional rigidity is one of the reasons I prefer my aluminum bikes. In fact, I haven't ridden any of my steel bikes in years.

Originally Posted by wilson_smyth

Is there a reason steel is not used much now days?
Most articles i read on the topic say due to newer steel types & manufacturing methods, steel frames are now much lighter, to make the difference in weight too little to worry about for all but the pros.
A lot of the articles also say steel is more durable with a longer life and easier repaired.
Carbon is getting more affordable but many sources say cheaper carbon frames are inferior to metal frames in the same price braket & a good carbon frame is expensive.

Ive no doubt the articles are written with a bit of bias, but is there much truth? is weight not so much of an issue now days in relation to steel frames vs the average aluminium bike?

Originally Posted by guy153

It's hard to beat cold-drawn seamless tubes for strength-to-weight ratio. This is why you see them used in roll-cages. What Thyssenkrupp are doing is a great way to mass-produce car bodies where strength to weight is important, especially as crash-testing and emissions-testing both become stricter, but not such a high priority. It is certainly impressive that they are now in the ballpark where they can make a bike frame but I doubt it's actually as good. All this stuff about how you can design the structure to be stiff where you need it etc. is something you say if your method of manufacture happens to allow that but I doubt it's significant enough to make up for the difference in wall thickness and weight.

Originally Posted by donaldp

I see a lot if reference to Thyssenkrup and wonder, do they make bikes, or just steel? I work for I/N Kote and we make the finest finished steel for autos at least in the us of a. Our high strength for honda door frames for instance I have wondered if it would make a good bike frame.

Originally Posted by Johnk3

I first began riding a real bike in the early 1980's with a Italian Simoncini made from Columbus SL which I still have. I took 20 years off to get lazy and overweight but went back to riding about 10 years ago with a couple of CF bikes. After a year or so I tired of them and began riding my old Simoncini again. That caused me to think, and now I have my new custom made Cicli Barco XCr. It is made from stainless steel Columbus XCr tubing which is very thin and very light. The frame is a size 58.5 cm and weighs 18.675 lbs with pedals. I could have knocked off weight with a lighter saddle and wheels but I ride some rough roads and the saddle fits my butt just fine. I use it for all my bikes.

My personal opinion is that, although CF frames are lighter, they also benefit from having a lot more advertising space and potential gimmickry.

Originally Posted by mack_turtle

did anyone else notice how suddenly djcookie suddenly appeared on this forum and establish him/herself as a troll? does cookie have some kind of creepy personal vendetta against Grant Petersen? every other cookie post is about Grant Petersen. it's really quite odd.

Originally Posted by Wildwood

Why is steel out of favor?

I challenge the premise. Favor with who?

I only ride to please one person.
That one person knows that tire size and inflation determines the ride quality much more than any other attribute. Frame material isn’t even second in ride quality.

I spend a fair amount of $$$ on quality tubular road tires. Money well spent.

If you want to appreciate ‘ride quality’ keep 15 roadies ready to go (steel, CF, Ti, Al) and compare them with every outing. You will end up buying better rubber!

Steel is not out of favor here.

Originally Posted by genejockey

Also, nobody's won a TdF on steel since Indurain. Why do you suppose that is?

Originally Posted by rydabent

Because cycling teams can afford the throw away $10,000 light weight CF bikes. Light but too fragile for most cyclist.

Originally Posted by rydabent

I would suggest that in all the worlds bike production, steel still leads in numbers.

Originally Posted by rydabent

Because cycling teams can afford the throw away $10,000 light weight CF bikes. Light but too fragile for most cyclist.

Originally Posted by rydabent

I would suggest that in all the worlds bike production, steel still leads in numbers.