KonAaron Snake 

My Merlin (before the hideous American Flag cork wrap)

Chombi

I don't have anything against Ti bikes but I do prefer steel bikes aesthetic-wise;

Everytime I look at this pic of my Peugeot PSV, I get reminded on how perfectly balanced and interesting the look of 80's steel racing bikes were.
I now have a higher spec Vitus Carbone, but I think I still like the looks of the PSV a litle bit better because of the details on it. It would be the same reason why I would prefer a steel 80's bike to a Ti.
JMOs

Chombi

Reynolds 753

I've had during the same time for several years a steel and titanium bike. Both were LeMonds - same size (55cm) and geometry. They also had the same type of wheel/tires which can influence the quality of ride a bike provides. To me there was very little (if any) difference between the two. The only "advantage" that Ti has over steel is it's non-corrosive properties which for me, living/riding along the Atlantic Coast was a plus. Due to this they also don't rust from the inside out due to condensation.

...and yes I know about 'frame saver' and like products for steel frames - salt and humidity are still formidable foes for a steel frame.

canyoneagle

Best riding steel frame I've ever experienced was the Tommasini Tecno. Phenomenal.
I'd imagine Serotta, Waterford, Richard Sachs, and the like would be shoe-ins for the "ultimate" category.

sced

70's too! It's the colors, the skinny tubes, and all the coruscating.

StanSeven

It's really diificult to compare materials and particulary steel with ti. The differences between frames and bikes have much more to do with what the builder does than the material. Both can be made to be stiff, flexy, comfortable, etc. I have a custom ti and I got to pick how I wanted it to ride. The builder used differt tubes to vary the characteristics. For example I wanted it light but stiff in the rear. It turns out to ride almost identical to a steel bike I have.

People also compare bikes and don't realize the wheels and tires have a lot to do with the ride; perhaps more than the frame.

tarwheel 

Keep it going. I love my ti bike - it rides like steel but I never have to worry about rust or paint scratches. Plus it's a little lighter.

froze

I'd like to own a ti bike, but I have other projects taking excess money so I stay with steel. I have a 67 Ford Galaxy 500 conv and a 79 Chev Camaro Z28 that I finished painting last summer after someone smacked into it; and now I'm turning the engine into a 383 stroker with about 450hp and 435 ft lbs of torque to the rear-nothing huge in the hp department but I don't want to swap trannies and rearends to hold down higher hp's, but I will have to have the tranny rebuilt and shift kit installed. So these things take any excess money I have, plus this summer I want to race the Z at Osceola Dragway near Mishawaka airport here in Indiana and that cost money as well.

By the way, cheap TI bikes have been having problems with frames failure, so I'm not so sure about buying a cheap TI frame just because it's TI and can be had for cheap...BUT...there's also been in increase in cheap CF frames failing too, and these are failures that occur without warning and suddenly resulting in serious crashes.

froze

You have an extremely nice looking bike and it's a classic; thanks for showing it.

sced

Thanks. It doesn't look to me that steel frames changed very much from the late 60's to the late 80's, when the specialty steel alloys, shaped tubing, and tig welding became prevalent.

froze

Weight wise they changed a bit when they figured out that they could make thin wall double butting the main tubes would lighten the frame and still keep the frame strong. I had a a top of the line late 60's racing Puch I bought used in the early 70's and it was about 2 pounds heavier then the Trek TX900 I bought in 77, so just in those few years weight reduction improved. But not much in weight reduction of a frameset (not components) occurred from 1934 with the introduction of double butted Reynolds 531 until early 70's! Then the weight issue went stagnate again from about early 70's until about 1995 when higher performance steel came out like the Reynolds 853 that lowered the weight of a frame by about a pound. Then steel makers figured out by removing lugs (but I like the looks of lugs) they could save about 1/4th of a pound, then of course going with CF forks instead of steel would save about a pound.

Components have always been evolving, and in 60's (and of course prior to 60's) they were heavy compared to 80's stuff, but weight of components haven't changed much since the 80's up to today just the cost and reliability (lower now) changed a lot to get the higher end stuff today.

By the way, I almost bought a Holdsworth when I bought the Trek TX900, but opted for the Trek strictly on price, the Trek was about $500 less and equipped the same with Campy Record (actually when I bought the Trek Trek only sold frames with no components, the LBS supplied and installed the components). I hope you never sell that bike because if you do later you'll regret it like I do now for selling the Trek.

luker

I would also like to know everyone's opinions on ultimate steel. I'm thinking right now that columbus XCR or Reynolds 953 might be the best overall. The new Columbus "bike-specific" steels are also contenders...I'm thinking life, spirit, zona. What others?

sced

Aye aye...a Christmas present from my parents when I was 16, that was custom made for me and delivered in 1973.

LOIBLB

After 15 years of owing a very fast Litespeed Classic have to say Ti. But I have 6 steel rides that will bring great fun on any given day. But in group rides I noticed the plastic / carbon is all the rage. I just sold a plastic tall dollar bike. Give me Ti or steel.

froze

Dang, were your parents into cycling? They seem like they were to pick out a steed like that! My first bike my parents bought me was a Mattel Varooom at the age of 8, that's probably worth a mint now but I was the joke of the neighborhood then; then when I turned 12 my brother needed to buy a car and thus needed money so I bought his Schwinn 3 speed. I jumped at the Schwinn because I broke the Mattel doing jumps about 3 years prior, and walking just wasn't the thing to do when all your friends had bikes.

sced

So you're an addict from an early age:-)

The Holdsworth was my consolation prize when my parents bought my older sister a new car, a Datsun 510. They didn't know anything about bikes, but I sure did. I ended up with the car about 5 years later after my sister trashed it. I learned a lot about working on cars just trying to keep it going. The engine eventually went because it had been so poorly maintained, but I still have the bike.:-)

RobbieTunes

I've had Ti, have carbon, aluminum and steel, prefer steel.
BUT
If they made a Ti bike to the exact specs of a 56cm Tange 1 Ironman, with a nice CF fork, yeah, I'd be all over it.

I still plan to get a Ti frame and build it, just have to find one the owner realizes is Ti, not gold.

Barrettscv 

I'll provide a first hand report in March;



I'm sure this will be a little better than this;



Or;



or;

sekaijin

..

dd74

I'll get you one tonight of my Schwinn/Serotta Paramount.
I'm also thinking of selling it.

53cm, full 9-spd D/A, except the cranks and pedals (Ultegra), brand new Brooks saddle, Mavic Helium wheels, rare Ti Serotta stem, Litespeed Ti seatpost. I'm figuring $1,800.

tugrul

What about 80's titanium? Looks like Fuji had them back to 1987, and no plastic fork. No lugs either, but you can rarely have it all.



Finding one of those would blow my mind. Wonder how it rides.

Wiswell

Hah. I knew I had to stalk you to find out what the frameset was you were building! I wasn't clever enough to figure it out by the picture previews.

I will tell you that a friend of mine has a ti litespeed and a steel Lemond. He prefers the Lemond. I have never ridden ti but I rode with a couple for about 100 miles all told (over two days) who had matching custom Spectrum ti's and they loved them.

Can't wait to see this ride in person!

bikerosity57

Titanium should be a better choice for a bike frame than steel, but a lot of steel framed bikes ride very well indeed. However, a properly made and designed titanium frame should be the ideal way to go: good vibration dampening qualities, stiff enough but not overly so, and extremely strong. Also, titanium does not corrode, is difficult to scratch, and unlike steel it can be repeatedly flexed up to a point with out damaging the metal FOREVER. Steel eventually fails even with modest flexing(although "eventually" could be a very long time/amount of flexes), and aluminum is even worse. If you left your titanium frame out in the weather for ten thousand years, it would be just as good as new.
If it were cheaper everything would be made of titanium.

RobbieTunes

I like my Ironman bikes, and a Paramount, and some Italian steel. To date, none has ridden like this Ti, and if if was a 56cm, I'd still have it.

old's'cool

Unless the scientific understanding of steel properties has changed drastically since I went to school, that is incorrect. Steel has a "fatigue limit", which IIRC is about 20% of it's yield stress. In accordance with fatigue theory, stresses below a material's fatigue limit can be applied an infinite number of times with no damage. You are correct about titanium, however.
For more information, here is the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit