bmthom.gis

False. The only "fast" bike is a red bike. A carbon fibre bike can't magically go faster than a steel or aluminum bike.

Duo

thanks for the memories. The old Nishiki International was the bicycle of my high school years. Really solid, just didn't know what i had. Now i ride touring bikes and get about the same effect from them. Cromoly just gives me better vibes than do the others.

Let me add, that the new bikes are nice too. It depends on how much cash you wanna drop, for a recreational rider, it probably doesn't matter what you ride. Just riding anything is fun, whether it be a tandem, mtb, touring or racing bike.

Sangetsu

I got my steel bike back in 1998. I was part of a team for a year, racing in Southern Europe. Our team was supplied with Gios bicycles, we had a choice between the A90 (aluminum) or the Compact Pro (steel). I was the only one to choose a Compact Pro. Components were a mix of Record and Chorus parts, I upgraded all the parts to Record (at my own expense). I still have this old Gios, it has been ridden in many countries, states, and continents, and still rides as sweetly as ever. I still run the old school Helium wheel set, and carbon 9 speed record kit, though the original shifters wore out a few years ago, and needed to be replaced.

Sangetsu

One thing steel bikes offer is some "comfort factor". The most comfortable bike I have ever ridden was my old Trek 660 with a Reynolds 531 frame. Everything about this bike was spot-on, it was light, agile, soaked up rough roads, and for some reason, my pedal stroke on this bike was as smooth as could be. With the Record components of the day (down tube shifters, and sew ups), it was quite light. I wish I had never sold this bike. I have ridden titanium, carbon fiber, and aluminum, but nothing was as magic as my old Trek.

curlyque

Something like this.......

HauntedMyst

Both my steel bikes are very comfortable to ride.

BobbyG

I likes my steel 1983 Nishiki International so much I bought a new Charge Plug skinny steel semi tourer. It isn't so heavy, and the ride is supple.

Phil_gretz

I'm sorry. Not a fan of the aero wheels or aero cages, except maybe on the last one (the alloy silver disappears). I'm sure you receive "oohs and aahs", though. Just not for my tastes.

nishiki _fan

I ride old steel because I'm a vintage type of guy. I love acquiring things from the past, learning about their history, and keeping them in the present. I will ride my 1987 Nishiki International into the ground!

peace

Duo

back in the 70's, Nishiki used to run their bike ads in Bicycling Magazine if memory serves. Their ads were very classy for the International, it may have been the bicycle on the back of a Rolls Royce. As a teen my new International felt like a luxury bicycle compared to all the beaters I rode as a kid. And yeah, the stem shifters and aluminum alloy components were all high end to me................still are.

Very insightful. Fasting can be helpful at times, in fact a doctor wrote a book on the subject titled "Fasting can save your life". He helped cure many people just by putting them on a water fast for a short time. Some were cured of problems they had for decades.

Now we need a book titled: Old Bicycles can save your life. New bicycles can too of course. These new carbon bikes will be vintage some day, just maybe not for some of us.

MrB67

I ride my steel lugged frames for several reasons:
First the weight issue. I like the fact that my training bike is a vintage steel lugged frame, which is heavier than my race bikes. I WANT the extra weight, it makes you a stronger rider. Some may argue that, but I don't care, it works for me!!
Second, you can't beat the ride quality of a good steel frame, that's why there is the saying "steel is real" on a long distance ride, my body takes less of a beating from a steel frame than an aluminum frame. Steel has the unique characteristic of energy absorption, which you can't get from aluminum, titanium, or carbon. So on long rides your body experiences less fatigue from shock. Energy transfer from the road through the frame to the rider is smallest on a steel frame.
Third, a good quality steel frame can be just as light and strong as a aluminum frame. And ALMOST as good as a carbon frame, All I have to say on that topic is "Columbus tubing".
I agree that carbon is stronger and lighter, but it has a life span shorter than steel, and can fatigue. Of course, on the flip side of that argument is the fact that you have to take care of your steel frames or they will rust. But unless you make a living riding on the saddle, weight differences that are measured in grams or ounces, or even several pounds, don't justify the expense of carbon, and high tech components. At least not for everyone.
I find it ridiculous when guys snob and brag over the 6 oz. they saved by buying the latest and best parts for their ride, or even the 2-4 lbs. they saved by going to a full carbon frame set, and then go out for pizza or a cheeseburger. Seriously, weight is not that big of a issue, unless you race for a living. There are still records set by cyclists who rode steel bikes, (ones considered today to be classic/vintage), and even though we have all pros riding the latest carbon, the old records still stand undefeated.
And if weight is that big of a issue, I'll go on a diet before I go full carbon!
I have nothing against carbon, I just don't have a interest in it. And I have a nice aluminum Cinelli race bike, but my personal preference will always be steel. After all is said and done, for me, it boils down to the quality of the ride a good lugged steel frame can provide. It's well worth the extra cost of weight, for me.

Oldguyonoldbike

My experience seems to fly in the face of a lot of the hype. I have three bikes: an aluminum Raleigh CX bike (23 lbs.), a steel Colnago Tecnos with profiled Columbus tubing (21 lbs.), and a carbon fiber Ciocc with Deda tubing (18 lbs.). Gearing is different on all three: the Raleigh has a 46/36 crankset up front and an 11/28 cassette, the Colnago a 53/39 with a 13/26, and the Ciocc a 52/36 with a 12-27 cassette.

I ride the Raleigh in bad weather. It's heavy and the least comfortable. No surprises. It also has disc brakes which are great in the wet.

The carbon fiber Ciocc is a dream to ride. It is supremely comfortable, handles well and climbs with ease.

The steel Colnago, on the other hand, is much more comfortable than the aluminum, but not as comfortable as the carbon (perhaps the profiled tubes are stiffer than most steel tubes). Either the weight or the taller gearing give me more of a workout than either of the other bikes, but it is much faster than the other two. When I got the cf bike I was expecting all sorts of PB's on Strava, but it just didn't happen. Segments and average times are just higher on the Colnago in spite of the weight, a more upright position and 20-year old gruppo and hubs. Oh, it's also a lot prettier than the other two.

C0UG4R

I ride steel frame bikes because 1: I like the looks of them vs a carbon bike 2: Much cheaper for parts and the frame. I'm sure carbon bikes are great, I just prefer riding a steel frame.

shelbyfv

Thanks

Atlas Shrugged

Think how much progress there has been with Carbon bicycles in all the major categories over the past 6 years since this thread was last commented on, they are now cheaper, the ride can be precisely tailored, more durable and even lighter.

Flatforkcrown

yet people are still riding and making steel bikes.

rydabent

That old steel lugged frame bike will still be on the road after that fantastic plastic new bike they are building these days has shattered.

Atlas Shrugged

They also still make, turntables, mechanical watches, manual transmission sports cars and tubular tires. People have an irrational attachment to nostalgia.

Flatforkcrown

I’m a fan of all of the above, and I’m not old enough to be nostalgic about them.

Phil_gretz

steel frame? check
turntable? no, sold
mechanical watch? check
manual transmission or sports car? no, no interest
tubular tires? check

I guess that I'm semi-nostalgic. I probably will have at least one steel framed bike until the day I stop riding.

ejw

There’s nothing wrong with the aforementioned. I own multiples of each. And three steel frame bikes: 1965 Fiorelli Road Racer, 1971 Raleigh International, 1981 Peugeot PSV 10 S… and an aluminum frame Gary Fisher Marlin circa 2002. I rode a lot in the 70’s thru the 80’s with a bit of racing in there and one 400 mile ride from Miami to Gainesville, Fla. And, I am riding anyone of these bikes almost daily. Frankly the steelies are beautiful, they ride well, and yes, there’s a bit of nostalgia involved.

mstateglfr 

The poster commented in the present day. They are presumably aware of this progress, so there isnt much reason to mention it.

Even with the progress you mention, that other poster may still like the look of a steel frame more...unless that progress you mention was the ability to look like a steel frame.



Its a hobby- it doesnt need to be logical or efficient.

rsbob 

2 steel frames, 1 aluminum and 2 carbon. Each bike has period group sets. Rather funny, if riding with older people (65+) I get all sorts of compliments on my early 80s and 90s frames, but nothing on the carbon, since they are strictly old school. But when riding with people in their 30s and 40s it’s the exact opposite. Preference seems to be with what you grew up with and what your goals might be. My sample size is relatively small but consistent.

The steel bikes are racing frames and the carbon are endurance. As I age, my preference has gone to comfort rather than speed - but a little speed never hurts

DMC707

Yes --- why in the world would somebody invest thought, time , money , patience and finally leg power in such an arcane and obsolete material ?

(Oh wait - i just did it a couple of years ago -- i must be stupid

indyfabz

Way to quote a 9+ year old post, spanky.