SteelyMan

6’6” 220#
masher more than a spinner
Columbus cromo
Columbus zona
Columbus life os

no tricks just long rides as fast as I can pedal

what and why is the better material?

I currently ride an undersized Masi riser uno with 49:15 and I like it but it’s a touch small.

My current fixed 49:15 a little small for me but its fun.

Attilio

There is no better material it's all about what you want.

Carbon is the nicest but most expensive and to reap the benefits you have to be going fast and pedaling very hard in terms of ride quality and power transmission so with single speed you are capped and it's kind of a waste. Wonderful because it can be SUPER stiff in the direction of power transmission but supple in the direction of bumps so best of both worlds and can be infinitely repaired but it's EXPENSIVE to do so. Plus carbon can be fragile if you're not careful, IE you can't stack it with three other bikes one on top of the other in a pickup truck bed or large trunk of an SUV like some people do. You have to treat it with respect.

Aluminum is the go to. Light, fairly stiff with good power transmission but not as good as carbon. It's kind of harsh though not great for long rides. It also cannot be repaired although its very resistant to scratches that could do in the carbon, once it has a ding or dent or bend it's done as the strength is forever compromised. It also has a limit to how many cycles it can expand and contract or miles or bumps. The limit is huge but eventually aluminum fatigues and again cannot be repaired. Unless you ride a century all the time the bike is likely to last so long as to outlive you or at the very least be obsolete before you need a new frame. You can get a "hybrid" frame with aluminumn body and carbon fork that way you get the "nice steering" and responsive handling of a carbon bike but save on a lot of the cost. On a single speed this is probably your best bet unless you are planning on taking a lot of very bumpy roads or maybe trails.

Steel is wonderfully soft, it's like having a full suspension and dampens out road chatter and more than small bumps perfectly. It can be but doesn't have to be heavy (price = quality some steel frames cost almost as much as carbon). But the softness that gives nice ride also makes it flex a lot when you pedal so it's going to be less responsive and slower vs aluminum and carbon. It also corrodes more than the other two so care must be taken to either avoid precipitation or winter salt, or rinse out/clean your bike very thoroughly if exposed. Steel is infinitely repairable as long as it doesn't corrode, you can "bend/bang it back" or "weld away" any imperfection.

Titanium is nice, good ride and stiff. Very similar to aluminum better corrosion protection, more stiff and lighter with less flex and more resistant to damage BUT it also cannot be repaired. It can be made very supple like steel but bike won't be as responsive. That's the problem with all metals it can only be made stiff or compliant in ONE direction. It's also very expensive.

There are other exotic materials like wood and bamboo, sky's the limit. All depends on price. On a single speed? Aluminum, aluminum/carbon hybrid or steel are probably your best and most reasonable choices.

Trakhak

For a given wheelbase, all bikes of a given type (track, road, touring, etc.) ride with the same level of perceived comfort, unless the rider is prone to confirmation bias.

For a guy your size and weight, carbon or aluminum with large-section tubes would be the best choice. Weight of a tube increases as the square of the diameter; stiffness increases as the cube of the diameter.

Here's a myth-busting report of fatigue tests of high-end carbon, aluminum, steel, and titanium frames from 1997.

(TL;DR: Several carbon and aluminum frames passed the tests. All of the steel and titanium frames failed.)

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/...tigue_test.htm

TejanoTrackie 

Correction. Weight of a thin walled tube increases linearly as a function of diameter and thickness. The weight is proportional to the cross-sectional area, which is 3.14 X Diameter X Thickness. You are correct regarding the stiffness.

TugaDude

Regarding the report linked above, make certain that you read the whole thing. One of the most salient points of the whole thing is at the very end. I guess to begin with this statement would have spoiled the impact?

"That aluminum and carbon frames lasted longer than steel frames in this test is in our opinion an issue not of materials, but of the design and construction effort. Not the material, but rather, the sophistication of its application, leads to the outcome. Logically, manufacturers concentrate their efforts on frames with good potential for light weight – and these are of aluminum or carbon; only as an exception (because of lower stiffness) of titanium."

Trakhak

What I take away from that statement is that steel and titanium frames, to approach the light weight and durability of well-engineered carbon and aluminum frames, must be more carefully designed and constructed than the carbon and aluminum frames, because the margin of error is smaller.

markwesti

My 2cents , on long open road rides Aluminum has a harsh ride . My fixie is ahem , Aluminum . I only ride ultra smooth trails . My opinion a composite frame for long rides is the better material . But it's not advisable to just have one bike .
Mark .

TugaDude

That's probably right. And the constructed part of that involves the skill level of the person preparing and joining the tubes. I remember hearing of how Reynolds required frame builders to be certified in order to use some of their lighter weight tubing. Not all manufacturers were capable of joining tubes without potentially harming the overall strength of the end product. So there are always going to be variables. Same goes for aluminum, which is not the easiest product to weld from what I have read. Then there's carbon fiber. I actually sell carbon fiber and the epoxy to embed it. But the material I sell is used to repair concrete structures such as bridges and support beams. I can tell you that the installers vary in competence and that what on paper seems easy can get really screwed up in practice. And I'm sure it is the same for those laying up carbon fiber to make frames. Some's better than others me thinks. One small issue underneath can lead to tragedy down the road, pun intended.

TugaDude

Just another bit of commentary for what it is worth. I was in Kansas City, MO on business many years ago when I saw an ad on Craigslist for a track bike. It looked interesting and at least worth a look, so I responded to the ad and the seller gave me his address. I showed up and this guy had a house full of vintage track bikes. When I say a house full, I'm not kidding. The basement was full as were a couple of upstairs rooms. Dozens and dozens. It was more than a passion of his, it became an addiction I suppose. Most of the bikes were race bikes from the early 1900's with skip tooth cranks and 1" chains. Some were on the gnarly side while some were impressively preserved and complete. Wooden rims and steel rims and alloy too.

The bike I was interested in was newer but still vintage and sadly more money than I wanted to spend. Not that it wasn't worth it, but just wasn't the right time.

I've no doubt that all of the bikes he owned were rideable. Maybe some needed a cleaning and some fresh bearings and grease, but all of them could be made to be rideable with very little effort. I wonder whether carbon and aluminum frames will fare as well 100 years on, like those did. Not trying to stir up passions or controversy, just relating a story. These bikes stood the test of time and whatever they were made from, it is impressive. At least to me.

79pmooney

[QUOTE=Trakhak;22689400]For a given wheelbase, all bikes of a given type (track, road, touring, etc.) ride with the same level of perceived comfort, unless the rider is prone to confirmation bias.

.../[QUOTE]

No. 1976 I rode side by side the Fuji Pro criterium bike that was my racing steed and an early Klein. It was immediately obvious that the ride of the Klein was quite different and that a day on regular rural New England roads would be very different. (The Klein being far stiffer and more jarring.) That fact was immediately obvious on a good road with new good surface. And it wasn't aluminum bias. No one there had ever seen or heard of an aluminum bike. I knew in that 1/2 mile I rode that the Klein was 1) going to change the racing bike world and 2) it was never going to be a good ride for me.

I now have a mix of steel and titanium bikes. Both of the ti bikes were inspired and loosely copied from steel rides I liked. They are different rides. Not night and day, I can go back and forth between the ti and the steel no sweat. (Well, the steel inspirations have long been retired. Both had issues that meant they were not keepers that had nothing to do with the frame materials chosen.)

As to the tubing options the OP is looking at - my first concern would be tube diameter ad wall thickness. Larger diameter means more stiffness, but if this means thinner tubing to keep weight down, consider hard how delicate a bike frame you want. Tubing gets its resistance to dents and the like with wall thickness, tubing yield strength and curvature. Now wall thickness and curvature have very large influence over denting; more being better. Here, small tubes rule. Go a little smaller diameter and increase the thickness the same amount and the resistance to dents goes way up. Tubing yield strength, that fancy number you pay big bucks for, has a small linear effect.

The Peugeot UO-8 I paid $80 for a million years ago with steel so soft the bike was different after every crash never dented. It was dropped, abused, bent ... many times. The highest priced, fanciest, highest strength 853, 900-something or whatever oversized and thin wall tubed bike would have died from abuse early on living that bike's life.

And all that said, I just acquired a Pro Miyata (short step down from the Team; equal tubing). Ride is all that people who love steel rave about. Been riding it and my '79 Mooney all summer. (Mooney has probably 531 old school good small diameter tubes. Miyata has the best of the early '80s same diameter Chro-Mo. Miyata made their own tubing so I cannot rave that it is Prestige or whatever, but one ride and you know its good.) Sunday I took my ti fix gear out for the first time in many months. Full equal of the Miyata but smoother. (Not a true test. I don't yet have good tires on the Miyata but it will still be a "louder" road feedback bike than the ti bike. (All my bikes have steel forks that aren't all that different.)

Now as far as the bike and frame material being able to propel you down the road? My bikes make it obvious - you can go wrong and have a bike that doesn't extract your best or you can have a bike that does out of virtually any material. Fit is number one. (Engine performance.) Geometry is up there. (Handling.) Tubing? Small gains in efficiency perhaps, feel (feeding the brain with good stuff), weight savings perhaps (helping uphill and slightly in pure acceleration like when you gotta get on that wheel).

And the big bummer - stiffness. All steels are equal. The best 900 whatever is no stiffer than the crap on my old UO-8. Sorry. Only tubing diameter and wall thickness make a difference (unless the steel is so weak it permanently bends). And all other metals (ever used on bikes) are less stiff than steel. Titanium - half as stiff. Aluminum - one third. But since they are substantially lighter, you can use more material, go to larger diameter and still keep the wall thickness enough to be dent resistant. Now, frame design can make a very big difference. My Mooney and Miyata are far stiffer than my Raleigh Competition with its skinny fork blades and chainstays. The Competition feels like it is robbing me of power. Never timed it but I don't ride as big a gear on it on the same roads.

Oh, I say all steels are equally stiff. Not quite true. But the range is within about 10%. And better, stronger steel does not mean more stiff. Best of the lot is pure iron. Stainless tends to be the least stiff.