rpenmanparker 

I was getting beaten up by my Reynolds 531 custom frame the other day and wondering why there is so much "steel is real" belief if this is how it rides. Then it came to me.

When steel was the only practical bike frame material, no one talked about it being better than anything else. There was no anything else for it to be better than. Then when glued-and-screwed, small diameter Al frames came along, no one was saying that steel was more comfortable than them. Everyone who rode them knew the Alan and Vitus frames were cushy.

But when oversized Al tubed frames grew in popularity, Kleins and Cannondales, and shook all your fillings loose, then there was a suitable foil to compare steel frames to. Suddenly steel was the comfortable choice, THOUGH ONLY BY COMPARISON. Somehow that little detail got lost along the way. Then corollary myths developed that the molecular properties of steel gave it the edge, a springiness or liveliness and vibration damping characteristics. All true, but only in comparison to the horrible alternative, huge diameter Al frame tubes.

Even as the steel myth was being perpetuated, so was the dead feel rap against CF even though that was only a temporary feature common to the earliest examples of CF frames if it ever existed at all. Now there is no such complaint, at least not among objective observers.

So now there is the enduring myth that steel is the comfortable choice even though carbon fiber and modern aluminum frames beat it for comfort routinely. What I can say is this: I have ultralight carbon, very light Ti and standard steel frames, and the steel rides the worst. I have experienced sweet riding steel frames. The Ritchey Breakaway is one example. But even that one doesn't beat out my CF and Ti bikes for comfort.

My conclusion: ride steel if you wish. I will always have a steel bike and will continue to enjoy it. But don't make the mistake of thinking that steel is a magical bike frame material with properties that no other material can match or less likely exceed. It makes all kinds of bikes from crappy to excellent, just like the other three major materials, CF, Ti and Al, do.

rpenmanparker 

BTW, going to bed now. Let's see what kind of responses show up overnight.

noodle soup

You have way too much time on your hands.

f4rrest

This is my thought when I set the rat traps out by the garage...

DrIsotope

I chuckled sensibly.

HTupolev

Mostly aesthetics.

Nearly any rigid double-diamond frame is harsh on stiff tires, and plush on plush tires, regardless of material. Even very flexy steel tends to be plenty well-triangulated about the rear triangle to rattle the saddle somewhat well.

The "dead feel" thing might actually be real, albeit as a consequence of composite materials actually having damping properties. Which, with respect to buzz, is mostly a good thing. Albeit usually not a very critical aspect, since the tires are a great place to deal with that when practical.

Well, that's only partially true, depending on your design priorities. If you actually want a frame to have undamped flex, steel and Ti seem to be clear winners; carbon fiber composites always dampen, and it's sort of dodgy to let a fully aluminum frame flex very much.

This is of course a somewhat arcane aspect of frame design, but at the same time, about the only aspect of frame stiffness where possible performance merits seem to have been published in any kind of even vaguely scientific-ish study. (I would probably blow it off, if it weren't for what my '79 sport tourer feels like in stride.)

Not sure why you'd set them out by the garage.

But they can make a bike of any material ride plush.

smarkinson

Oh goody. It's been at least a week since we've had a good steel vs everything else thread (even though I'm sure this wasn't Roberts intent when he started the thread I'm sure BF will stay true to form and take this thread suitably off the rails in no time at all).

redfooj

Scandium is real

jlax2485

I'm sure that part of it depends on geometry as well. My Reynolds 531 frame is very comfortable but it is not a racing geometry. It is a sport touring Geo with longer stays.

Fwiw I also have a Cannondale caad4 that isnt terribly uncomfortable, but it has a racing geometry and carbon fork.

johnnyace 

I'm holding out for an adamantium frame set.

chaadster

Ignorant fools!

69chevy

In my humble opinion, splitting hairs over frame material is similar to what an "audiophile" or "camera snob" does in their respective hobbies.


There are so many variables in cycling and like anything with multiple variables, people tend to latch on to situations that are outliers to formulate opinions.


If I rode on cobbles, it would feel too harsh. If I climbed mountains, it would feel too heavy. If I were a sprinter with 36" quads, it would feel like a noodle.


I ride on the road, some nice sections, some rough sections. I climb around 1000ft every 25 miles or so. Any road bike would easily suit my needs. My last aluminum bike, my last carbon bike or my current steel bike all have the capability to go as fast or as far as I can pedal.


As far as comfort... None of my bikes have ever rattled out a filling, twisted like a pretzel or felt like a boat anchor. I may notice the tiny differences in their characteristics if I were focused on them, but I don't. I'm too busy enjoying the ride.

Trakhak

There's a bit more to the birth of the steel-is-real movement than the OP remembered.

A large proportion of the riders who bought Cannondales were moving up from an entry-level sport touring bike with a longish wheelbase to their first bike with racing geometry and a short wheelbase (in the case of the criterium-geometry Cannondales, a very short wheelbase).

Those of us who were already familiar with the feel of a short-wheelbase bike (I had a Bianchi Specialissima Supercorsa and a Bianchi Eco Pista at the time) wouldn't have detected much of a difference, if any, in the ride of the Cannondales. But less experienced riders were likely to make the mistake of attributing the unfamiliar bucking-bronco quickness imparted by the short wheelbase of the Cannondale racing geometry to the different frame material.

The myth that steel frames are superior to aluminum and carbon in comfort is as ineradicable as that of the superiority of $200 audio cables. I can feel tiny differences in bike setup, wheelbase, and geometry, but I can't feel differences in comfort, whatever that means, between frames made with different materials but with identical geometries.

rpenmanparker 

Don't be so sure...

rpenmanparker 

Bravo!

Maelochs

I already suggested this theory in the "What kind of CF bike should this steel rider buy." As it happens, i totally agree with myself.

I think everyone here knows that Any material can be fashioned into about any sort of object with about any properties the designer wishes. I am sure someone could build a noodly CF bike---though it might not last long. We all know steel and Al can be anything from plush to harsh.

Frame design is where it's at--assuming wheels and tires are equal.

But yes ... after wood faded around the end of the 19th century, All bikes were steel and no one even thought about it---sort of like no one goes around saying "Trees are wood." Bikes were steel. Of course.

I bet there were some plush and some stiff frames back then, and I bet the cognoscenti debated all day long over which frame had the most important set of characteristics.

"What, you have never ridden a Wright Flyer? It is laterally rigid and vertically compliant. Those Wright bothers ... they always come up with the latest improvements. They should never stop building bikes."

indyfabz

I am holding out for a transparent aluminum frame set. Until that time, ti is real.

69chevy

Quoted as confirmation bias to support my theory that many cyclists ride "the best" frames based on their own confirmation bias.

roadwarrior

There is an interesting article in Velonews this month (Giro d'Italia edition) on Hampsten's bike. The one he rode in the Gavia snow stage. I knew that Serotta built the bikes badged Huffy...but did not know that in the pursuit of weight savings that the steel frame walls were so thin that several frames failed. And that Andy had his built by a trusted frame builder he had been using for years.
It's an interesting read.
His Giro bike was about 19 and a half pounds.

FlashBazbo

Yes, steel is indeed the only way for those who wish to see their enemies driven before them and to hear the lamentations of their women!

zymphad

Even better, crucible steel viking documentary. Vikings used the ashes of their ancestors as carbon for their steel, so their ancestors live on in their swords. Awesome.

Scarbo

I love this kind of talk! It has a nice, Biblical ring to it.

Trakhak

Thanks for the support. It's you and me against the world.

69chevy

For sure. Just open a thread on the "best" (insert gear here).


The answer is always "what I have".

jamesdak 

I see the silly uninformed threads like this by the great unwashed heathens and just chuckle.

"Myth"********************???

Everyone who has half an objective brain knows that steel is real!