belacqua

I saw it claimed in another thread that modern steel rides significantly better than CV steel (in Wildwood's words: "Ask any builder of steel frames if they ride old bikes or new steel and they will all say new").

Do you agree? I'm pretty pleased with my Ironman and my Circuit, but very curious about the new stuff which I probably can't afford.

Incidentally: if I were a framebuilder I'd ride new bikes as fast as I could build them, but that has more to do with building bikes and less to do with CV vs modern.

So does modern steel ride better than CV? Why or why not?

bikemig 

I ride mainly modern steel bikes. Beats the heck out of me whether they ride better or not but I do like riding parts that I can replace easily.

iab

Define better.

And why exactly does Wildwood's question have anything to do with "better" or "worse"?

thinktubes 

Yes.

kaliayev

So he must personally know a lot of frame builders. Did he also ask them if ridding new steel is a nice way to advertise their product?

belacqua

I'm not sure how much the initial question had to do with better/worse, but it's something that I've been wondering about lately. Here is the context:

RobbieTunes

Pretty hard to describe, or define "better" with so many variations of wheels, components, even saddles out there, over time. Two identically equipped '85 Merckx bikes can ride a lot differently if one has a "tired" wheelset and the other is trued and tensioned correctly.

I'll ride a new, modern steel frame in the next week, and perhaps plug back in here. Building it has been a learning experience, but it "feels" pretty special, so far.

My most often-ridden bike:
It needs a rest and an overhaul.



What I'll probably replace it with:
It needs to be ridden a lot more.

jeirvine 

And if so, why? Alloys, dimensions, what?

belacqua

This is the matter at hand, for sure.

One thing I'd like to know: assuming that modern steel has slightly better strength:weight and slightly better manufacturing tolerances, do we assume that the modern frame will ride "slightly better"? What virtues might 80s steel frames have that modern frames lack?

I'm not really thinking about changes in geometry, although personally I find the shorter top tubes on CV bikes a big plus.

A related question that I wonder about a lot: when people say or imply that SL/SLX/753/853 etc. frames ride better than Tenax/501/4130 frames, what exactly do they experience as the difference.

belacqua

What is it? I look forward to the report.

dicktill

I'm curious: Why do you find shorter top tubes "better" (for you at least)?

Thanks, Dick

NormanF

My double butted cromoly steel bike is light and sweet. It will be vintage in ten years. Aren't they always?

RobbieTunes

Check the bottom line of my signature....

Hydrated

As a blanket statement... saying that new steel rides better than CV steel smells like BS to me.

First thing: Make sure that you're comparing apples to apples. Don't compare a 1978 Schwinn Varsity to a custom built Waterford frame. Or vice versa. Heck... if you're riding a $3000 custom built frame it damn well better have a nicer ride (and fit) than a 30 year old off the shelf CV frameset.

Second thing: It all depends on what you're looking for. Different frames do different things differently.

My 1984 Trek 520 touring frame cruises like a Buick with a cushy ride and lots of carrying capacity. My 1996 Serotta Atlanta is perhaps the fastest and most responsive frame that I've ever ridden. And my 1976 Raleigh Professional is the best frame that I've ever owned. Period. All old steel. All ride great.

But compare those to the new Surly Pacer that I owned for 3 years. The Pacer was crap by comparison... but it's a cheap frame compared to what the Serotta and Raleigh cost when they were new. Those two bikes were FAR more expensive than what I could afford back in the day. I remember going to the bike shop and lusting for a new Raleigh Pro and knowing that my high school student's budget could never afford one.

The question should be: Does the new steel frame that you can afford ride better than the CV steel frame that you can afford?

Scooper

For 95% of my riding these days I grab my "new" steel bike. It's significantly lighter (by five or six pounds) than my C&V bikes, it fits me better 'cause it's custom, it has 10-s Campy Record with more effortless shifting and more gears, and because it's lighter and fits better it climbs better.

The ride quality - however one defines that - is very similar to my steel C&V bikes; even though the tubing walls are thinner on my new bike, they're oversized so the frame stiffness is about the same.

StanSeven

Also it's very difficult and maybe impractical to do an apple for apply comparison. Just getting the same wheelset on both bikes is a challenge as is saddle, seat post, bars and stem, etc. I know semi-aero wheels with the latest tires certainly feel stiffer and quicker than older box rims with 32 or 36 spokes. Getting the same wheels on old and new steel might be enlightening if that was possible.

bradtx

belacqua, I suspect that a modern steel frame will ride better than an older steel frame. Not because of the frame's material, but rather because of the advances in wheels, tires, drive trains and anything else more recently available and commonly used.

This is a little OT as I ride aluminum these days, but I can take one bike and by simply changing around the three sets of wheels I have on hand, have three distinctly different riding experiences.

Brad

10 Wheels

Define better....Could all be in the tires and PSI.

jimmuller 

Very aptly put.

I have no modern frame, but the range of riding experiences on just the vintage ones is astonishing.

busdriver1959

In general, old steel frames are limited to standard sized tubing and .9/.6/.9 wall thickness. Since then, oversize and double oversize, with thinner walls, have been offered as tube sets and lug sets. If not constrained by lugs, there are even fewer limits on tube size.
Air hardened tubes like True Temper OX Platinum build up into very nice rides. KVA, a new entry into the tube market, offers stainless tubes that build well and ride well for considerably less cost than Reynolds or Columbus stainless.
If you love the ride you get from standard tube sizes, then the answer is no, modern steel is not better. If you want lighter weight and a stiffer frame that still has that wonderful steel ride, then yes, modern steel is better.
It's going to cost you though. A new frame will cost quite a bit more than a typical complete "nice" C&V bike. Finding a builder with a design philosophy that agrees with what you are looking for will take some work on your part too.

Chrome Molly

I was going to write something like that, but here it has already been stated more succinctly.

To get a "better" ride from a modern bike compared to top end vintage stuff that also suits you, you need to know exactly what you want. This is far more difficult than it sounds. You need to do a little research and have comparable frames in mind that you can use for your comparison. You shouldn't rely on descriptions of ride qualities to make the comparison, since the two of you will ultimately have different opinions on what "smooth" or "stiff" is. If you find a builder that can relate to you in the same way, and gets what you're talking about then it's probable that you will come out with a winning combination. Also make sure they know how you are going to build it up, components, wheels, tires, etc. This is because those things make as much or more difference in the ride experience than the frame itself. If you want something that net's to a certain equation, they need to know all the inputs.

I suppose off the peg frames are better than older off the peg frames, but to get the whole enchilada from modern materials and components a custom is the way to go.

retrovision

I'm using an aluminum Transend DX which sucked until I replaced the front fork with carbon fiber. Steel? Which steel is heavier and sucks worse? Just picking up a steel bike is a pain. Aluminum is not so nifty because it's so rigid. It doesn't give at all. It translates every bump to my old hands and makes them hurt. But, if you get a carbon fiber front fork and a shock post for your seat, you're light and comfortable.

My opinion is that steel is only acceptable if you can't afford anything better. Modern steel is better than what's in my 1960's Schwinn and they use a little less of it in modern bikes. Not enough to matter. I really think riding my old steel sucks. That a modern design might weigh a couple pounds less? I like like it weighing half of what a steel bike weighs. Trying to pick up my old Schwinn and stick it on the bike rack on the bus is about enough to give me a hernia.

Steel? Bad stuff. I don't use it.

irwin7638

I doubt it. I have three modern steel frames, but each of them have different geometry than my old TREK. I enjoy the newer frames more than the old one but it is a question of the design and not the tubing itself. I would have to compare a new "roadie" to my old TREK to have a valid opinion and I am not going to run right out and buy another just to test it.

Marc

AZORCH

This is my take away also. My 1966 Paramount, at nearly half a century old, is one of the best rides I've ever experienced. By contrast, a 1984 Centurion Turbo was uber-light weight but felt noodly as can be and I always felt as though I might break the frame if I rode too hard. A Peugeot P8 with incredibly non-descriptive Carbolite 103 tubing was heavy-ish - but was also a wonderful rider, especially for longer spirited riding. So much affects one's perception of "better" that I don't know if it is even possible to make an "all things being equal" sort of comparison. My main rider is a contemporary steel bike, a Boulder Brevet. I have often described it as "confidence inspiring" to ride - but how much of that feeling is the "ride" of the steel? And how much can be attributed to the geometry, the construction, the wheels and tires, etc.? The few builders I have spoken with (and that is a very limited sample group, by the way!) speak highly of modern steel...but I've also heard at least one speak with remorse about not having access to some of Reynolds more historically famous tube sets. Hmm.

RobbieTunes

What he said (the entire thing), but I do like enchilada's in many forms.

Knowing what you want is a big key. It's the reason Seven Cycles gets tons of data on you before they start the build. It's the reason Pegoretti wants to know more about you than just what you want your bike to look like. The vast majority of people want what the builder has decided we want, and I have to admit, that's long been good enough for me, even better, in most cases, than I could have asked for.

From an Ironman to a Merckx, I've had steel road frames you could beat the heck out of and they come back for more, delightfully unchanged. I've had some I wanted to throw in the ocean after a metric (put my aluminum experience in this category, and a couple of carbons-albeit both in a limited sampling). I find steel, for the most part, to be the same on mile 1 as on mile 120, which is logically true of any bike, but some frames just are not made to go 100 miles and keep you happy at the same time. Some are made to hook and jab in the criterium environment, some are more utilitarian.

My needs are for a bike I can ride on metrics, full centuries, but still ride on the Wednesday night slugfest, where the youngsters vent their frustration at not getting laid, and the old guys try to prove they still have it. Nothing yet combines those two for me as well as some of the very nice steel frames from the 80's, but we'll see.