Koyote

I'd be concerned that someone might stumble across this thread and take this seriously...But nah, no one would do that.

rydabent

An analogy here would be like the Tonka toy trucks. The old ones were made out of steel, and while they may now be rusty, they still work. Now they are made out of plastic, and if used hard get thrown away every couple of years.

mstateglfr 

At no point did you explain why/how the 3 or 4 metal frame options are better.
You claimed the metal options are far superior, were asked to explain why/how they are far superior, and completely failed to explain.

Vintage Schwinn

An ELECTROFORGED, ancient Schwinn built, STEEL FRAME is among the most durable bicycle frame ever constructed.

For at least 50 years, perhaps more, the cycling community has looked at lack of weight as the pinnacle.

Sure, it (super light weight) is if your aim is to Race your bicycle, as any reduction in overall weight aids in perhaps a better competitive advantage.

Now, everyone knows that for those not desiring to Race, the ultimate lightweight bicycle might not actually be the best choice.

Some folks believe there is a stigma associated with making appearances at their group rides and such without the latest & greatest generation of equipment.
They believe that they will not gain acceptance among the group quickly enough and they assume they could be ostracized from the group..............................
perhaps that might be true in some circles, but probably not, as most are most welcoming, if one can maintain pace, and rides courteously and doesn't endanger the overall safety of the group.

............Now, certainly nobody is saying that one needs to ride a 36 pound bicycle, or even a 40 pound Schwinn, but there are hundreds of differing makes/models of steel bikes that are below 30 pounds in total weight. Yes, 30 pounds, today is considered excessively heavy such that it is "unacceptable" to nearly everyone new to cycling....................Perhaps that is the problem............weight sillyness......................but in practical terms, maybe only 30% of the recreational cyclists are in such quasi-Lance type athletic shape that they can really use the lightest-carbon fiber goodness..........................at least 2/3 of the remaining recreational cyclists in better than average physical fitness, likely won't have a practical benefit from say for example, a lightweight steel bike, versus something non-steel that is maybe five pounds lighter unless they are Racing in a Tri-athlon competition or other racing competition.
Steel is probably looked upon as obsolete by 95% of all new comers to cycling, and they probably have a similar view that the " self described-cyclists" had in 1973-1974 of the electroforged models outta of the windy city factory. It all boils down to the fact that "cyclists" don't want to be perceived as being pilots of common machinery that every nobody may have at their home.
The only large bicycling clique that prefers steel today might be the Antique fat tire cruiser crowd. It perhaps is the polar opposite of the road bike "cyclists". Still, despite the many differences among these groups, all of these folks do find their own unique ways to have fun riding bicycles.

Eric F 

This ^^^ is pathetically simplistic and willfully ignorant.

There's a reason why CF can be found in a multitude of high performance applications - sports, automotive, aircraft, etc., etc. - it's light, strong, versatile, and can be manipulated in ways metals can't. It's not just about the shapes, but also control of how it reacts. I will continue to "blow my money on a plastic bike" because CF is the material which offers the characteristics I'm currently looking for in a bicycle frame...and wheels...and handlebars...and seatpost...and cranks...

If you prefer a metal material for your bike frames, cool. Not everyone needs to enjoy cycling the same way. Being intentionally disingenuous about CF, however, is lame.

CAT7RDR

I purposely looked for a Reynolds 853 framed bike and found one on ebay last year in the form of a Schwinn Peloton. Could not be more pleased with a 20 year-old bike with a better ride quality then my newer carbon framed bike. The Peloton weighs in at 20 lbs and the Kestrel 17 lbs. I ride them both equally on the same routes. The Kestrel is a better climber but so what? I am in no hurry.

If I ever need another bike, I will look for similar quality steel framed bike like a LeMond or perhaps another Schwinn Columbus or Reynolds framed criterium bike.

vane171

[QUOTE=Mulberry20;21713666]That's one damn nice bike, I love that crank spider clean elegancy.

Reading this thread, I didn't see anyone mention titanium frames. Where those stand relative to steel, CF?

And will there always be CF frames in the future and will there be nostalgia for CF thirteen yrs down the road, as asked above... I think not.

guy153

Zona is 25CrMo4. "Triple / Double butted 25CroMo4 alloy seamless tubeset". Not my words, the words of the 2020 Columbus Tubi catalogue. The quoted UTS may be a bit higher than what you might look up in a book for 4130 because there's some benefit from cold-working. And it is a completely seamless tube. The main value that Columbus are adding is indeed the butting. Cromor is the same alloy only DOM rather than CDS. They're all excellent tubes.

As for 4130 vs 25CrMo4 the exact ranges of what's allowed in each are different but overlap. So a given piece of metal could easily qualify as either. 4130 just belongs to the American system of standards and 25CrMo4 is the European equivalent. Obviously Europe have to do their own version of everything.

guy153

Interesting and cool bikes but they were just ERW mild steel. Do you know what wall-thickness they used? I doubt it's as durable as a modern MTB frame made with DZB Reynolds 853.

Trakhak

I have a Reynolds 853 Peloton, bought on employee discount back in my bike shop days. Rode it for 10 years. Then I bought the first of several modern aluminum bikes. Since then, the Peloton has been collecting cobwebs in the basement. The Peloton was a great bike, but I fell in love with the greater lightness and responsiveness of the aluminum bike.

guy153

Ti is expensive and has a better strength-to-weight ratio than all the HSLA steels available, up to and including Reynolds 853 (and the Columbus equivalent). But the stainless steel tubes like Reynolds 953 and Columbus XCr surpass Titanium in strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight and are also a bit cheaper (though still pricey).

CF has better strength-to-weight than Ti. But Ti is lovely bright shiny metal.

There are also of course different grades of Ti available and you can even get it butted. The numbers I'm using are for 3AL-2.5V but I think that's pretty high-zoot.

You can fairly easily make a complete bike under the UCI weight limit out of Reynolds 953 these days and there was/is a pro-team using them (supplied by Genesis who may have also sponsored the team). But there's a lot of momentum behind CF and the markup on a CF bike is much higher.

billridesbikes

Holding out for a magnesium frame.

Germany_chris

There were quite a few made and some still

mstateglfr 

https://www.vaastbikes.com/

mstateglfr 

I understand what Zona is, I built a bike frame with 10 Zona tubes.
Your initial post just seemed to group pretty much all steel besides stainless in the same bucket and declared it all to be pretty much the same. I disagree with that assessment.

Quote:

4130 is pretty much what all the quality grades are anyway.
There's a bit of product differentiation going on with the other tubes in the range being a bit better ("air hardening", heat treatments, etc.) but they don't make a huge amount of difference as the wall thicknesses and butting profiles are mostly about the same.
It's a step up when you get to the stainless ones like XCr and 953 but before that point they're basically 4130.

I would also disagree that butting profiles are 'mostly about the same'.
A frame with a main triangle of .7/.5/.7 tubes and .7 S bend seat and chainstays will feel different from a main triangle of 1/.8/1 tubes and .9 stays. The butting profiles are often not at all 'mostly the same'. Some have short butts, others have long butts, and that doesnt take into consideration the wall thickness either.
And on top of that, there is a different UTS which allows for hardness/strength at the thinner drawn profiles.

Marginal differences dominate this hobby and are noticeable, even if you dont view them as really existing.

Koyote

And the higher grades of steel (air hardened and heat treated) are stronger, ceteris paribus, which allows either (1) thinner tubing walls (and hence lighter weight) for the same stiffness, or (2) the same tubing wall thickness (and hence same weight) for greater stiffness.

billridesbikes

I was thinking of this concept one from Weis that I saw at NAHBS in the before-time (2019). Plus it's 'Super Magnesium™" so must be better (hahaha)
https://alliteinc.com/allite-weis-as...ation-project/

Germany_chris

Whats the difference other than ones road and the other track

Merida also makes Mag road bikes

billridesbikes

Probably nothing. I just like it better, that's all.

guy153

I built one with 8 Zona tubes I didn't make the fork because it was an MTB and had a suspension fork.

Yes totally agree about wall thickness. The principle is that the higher strength materials can be drawn thinner because they're stronger. But Reynolds will sell you 525 tubes in .8/.5/.8. OK the 25.4 TT is only available as .8/.6/.8 but otherwise you can have all the same tube sizings as most 853 frames. It will just be a bit weaker if you crash it.

The point is that 4130 (even DOM 4130) without a heat treatment is good enough for a bike frame in the sense that it can be drawn and butted to very similar dimensions as you would use with any tube short of the stainless ones.

The butting profiles are slightly different for 631/853 than for 525/725. The transition from the thick part to the thin part is 40mm long on 525/725 but 50mm long on 631/853. I'm sure they have a good reason for this, but I doubt it will affect the ride.

Columbus are a bit different in that they don't sell you Cromor (exactly the same metal as 525, both are regular 4130) except in the slightly higher wall thicknesses. But they could and it would be fine.

The actual length of the butt is going to vary anyway depending on what size frame you're making as they only sell the tubes in a couple of different lengths. Then you can either cut off the long end, or cut both ends to make the butts the same length (it's important to do this if making a small frame or you may end up with one butt too short).

Some of the tubes are available in different dimensions because of the process you're going to use to make the frame. If you're TIG welding you want a slightly thicker HT and often an externally butted ST. If you are using lugs then they are adding a bit of extra thickness in those places where other tubes are joining on for you.

Well I think we agree that the differences are marginal

veganbikes

Someone built an aluminum bike with zero carbon on it that was well below the weight limit. Comparing to the UCI limit is silly. Look at the Rodrieguez Outlaw and Bandito which are well under UCI limits and the Bandito with 32c tires on a large with disc brakes at 15.9lbs or the Outlaw at 13.5lbs.

Carbon is the new wünderkind but with UCI being ancient it doesn't really matter aside from selling bikes. When you are adding weight to the bike just to get it within the limits, there is something wrong with those rules. You are not getting a safer bike you are getting a bike to conform to the rules.

Branko D

Who is adding weight in 2020/2021? I just don't get the sentiment that it's easy to get under the UCI weight limit.

Most pro teams now are running discs (sponsor choice, but they are). ​​​​​In a practical configuration with medium depth clincher wheels, top spec $10000+ bikes once you add pedals, bottle cages and a Garmin mount (that's how you weigh them for UCI compliance, not naked showroom weight) are well over 6,8kg and to get them as low the pro teams tend to use tubular wheels which the average cyclist simply does not want to faff with. The aero bikes are all over the weight limit to the extent there is a choice of bike to be made whether it is a climbing stage or not.
​​​​​
Sure, if you build a lightweight steel bike with rim brakes and low profile wheels and add carbon components and a CF fork, but that's not quite the apples to apples comparison. The move towards discs is largely driven by what people want to buy; people are willing to accept an extra bit of weight to be able to run hydraulic disc brakes, electronic groupsets and the like. People are also willing to accept a bit of extra weight to get deeper and more aero rims, a bit of extra weight to have a power meter, for tubeless and wider tires and so on. It's not like everyone is a weight weenie to the max; but they just don't want extra weight which adds no utility.

​​​​​​In a very real way the UCI minimum weight limit shifted development from "let's make the lightest bike we possibly can" to "let's make the best bike at the target weight". No weights needed or added.
​​​​​​
​​​​

rydabent

Care to talk about CF and airplanes? At least 3 CF tails on Airbus airplanes have broken off and killed hundreds!!!

Koyote

Provide sources, please. I am familiar with at least one such investigation; the NTSB ultimately determined the crash was caused by pilot error.

At any rate, this is a nonsensical argument. In case you haven't noticed, aircraft are a little different than bike frames, and they are subject to very different forces, too.

You chronically confuse your outdated and idiosyncratic biases with facts.

Eric F 

Isolated incidents related to one particular issue - which may or may not be related to the material itself - is not logical justification to ignore the thousands of other applications where CF material does the job spectacularly. It's clear you have an unreasonable prejudice against CF. Your choice. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to enjoy my CF bike every time I ride it.