steel frames

Mark Alexander

Recently, I have bought my first steel framed bike. Before this I had an Aluminium an a carbon framed bike. I have always been under the impression that steel would be heavy, jaring and uncomfortable.

I have been stunned by its ride quality. it's smooth as silk, forgiving and unbelieveably light! It is a fixed so it doesn't have heavy gearing etc. but still.....

I would strongly recommend a steel frame for a commuting and general riding bike.

nickwill

I prefer steel too.
My current best bike is made of Columbus Zona, and I must admit to hankering after a stainless steel bike in either 953 or the new Columbus version.

meagain

Depends on purpose IMO.

Racing (if I did such a thing!) - carbon.

Everything else (if it ever rains) - titanium.

Everything else (if never rains) - steel (Columbus SLX preferably).

ColinJ

Nickwill wrote:

I prefer steel too.
My current best bike is made of Columbus Zona, and I must admit to hankering after a stainless steel bike in either 953 or the new Columbus version.

Hi Nick - I hope I see you again this year!

Take a look at the current (Jan 17th) Cycling Weekly - they have a very positive review of a 953 Bob Jackson built with BTCs (Bicycle Torque Couplings) so it can be broken down and packed into a 26 inch square case (10 inches deep). It makes an ideal bike for travelling.

PS - Oh, to answer the original question... My bikes and what I think of them:

I have a lightweight steel geared Basso in Yorkshire, which is my main bike. I enjoy riding it. I have another Basso which I keep in the midlands. That is an older steel frame which is slightly heavier than the more recent one. It's a singlespeed bike, suitable for the flatter terrain of Warwickshire. I enjoy that one too. I have a steel-framed (853) hard-tail MTB which is nice to ride, though a little heavy. I have an Aluminium Cannondale which I also really enjoy riding. That is the lightest bike and I keep it for 'best' - holidays abroad and sunny UK days when I'm not doing too many hills (it has higher gearing than the Basso).

I know everyone keeps going on about the 'ride quality' of steel, but to be honest, the steel Basso with its tyres pumped up hard is more uncomfortable than the Al Cannondale with its tyre pressures lower.

I'm sure that the frame material makes a difference, but I find that the biggest contribution to comfort is the size/type of tyre and what pressure is used. I'd only believe the talk about frame comfort if I could ride a bike with the tyres pumped up really hard and still be comfortable on the poor road surfaces I have to suffer in Yorks/Lancs.

redddraggon

I think IMO titanium is the best material for a bike frame.

But I'm a materials scientist, and one of the things that I was I taught in my first year at uni is:

"When you select a material for a mechanical application, you need to justify why not steel"

Steel is cheap, has good mechanical properties, and is not overly heavy. Of course these are all relatives.

However I don't agree with steel being an ideal material for a commuting bike. IMO a commuting bike should be cheap, easy to maintain and reliable. Things like ride comfort (elimination of road buzz) and weight should come secondary. My commuting bike doesn't get the attention it deserves, gets mightily scratched and if it was steel it would have probably started rusting away by now. IMO, aluminium is the best material for a commuting bike, titanium if cost is less of an issue.

Felix-da-house-mouse

carbon front with alu back. there e go.

star_rover

I've got a couple of steelies. Would probably go for titanium if I had the readies.

Adamskii

Steel, rust? I've had a steel 501 for twelve years and used it to commute 5500 miles in the last 18 months (in the wet) and there isn't any sign of rust.

geoff_ss

Adamskii wrote:

Steel, rust? I've had a steel 501 for twelve years and used it to commute 5500 miles in the last 18 months (in the wet) and there isn't any sign of rust.

Quite. I commuted 26 mile/day minimum for years summer/winter rain/shine/snow and I've never owned a bike with anything other than a steel frame, usually a Reynolds variety. The only thing that's caused me to replace a frame is accident damage never corrosion. I have a 1949 Mercian frame which has needed the top tube replacing because of sweat damage otherwise it's perfect.

However I've just ordered my first aluminium frame (Kinesis Tk08) today so I'm about to discover how I like a different frame material. I'll hold my vote until I've tried it out

Geoff

oldwelshman

I have a 25 year old 531c frame I use on turbo now (105 gset)
I have an 853 winter bike, then a carbon for racing and also 853 for track racing.
To be honest I cannot notice such a huge difference and IMO if you gave most riders a black frame and did not tell them what it was made of, they would not know the difference

hugo15

I have a 20 year old Raleigh 531c frame that I use on my winter bike. Steel is nice, but Ti is the way to go though. I love my Airbourne.

Steelride

My two pence worth and frame history:

Aluminium Litespeed - buzzy as hell regardless of tyre pressures. This frame cracked around the bottom bracket area and they replaced it with a;

Carbon Litespeed - less buzzy than aluminium and very stiff and light, currently used as summer bike.

Titanium Van Nicholas - less buzzy than carbon but only just depending on tyre pressure, not as stiff as carbon, used as winter bike

Steel Reynolds 953. Due in the next few weeks. While I was waiting for the Litespeed replacement I borrowed a 15 year old Columbus steel frame/bike and was completely gobsmacked with the ride quality. Hopefully the 953 will have the same smooth ride but will be stiffer and lighter. I'm sure to let you know!

McBain_v1

Bike 1 - steel
Bike 2 - steel
Bike 3 - steel
Bike 4 - titanium
Bike 5 - aluminium

No plastic anywhere :P

wastelander

Bike 1 - Ti with Carbon rear triangle
Bike 2 - All alu
Bike 3 - MTB - full suss all alu

brit66

I've had four steel frames (531) in the past but all have been stolen over the years.

From what I remember though I don't think there is a big difference between those and my current alu frame. My best bike is carbon and is certainly a lot lighter, but again, on the flat not a hugh difference in performance I think.

Also, 20 years ago all bikes in the TDF would have been steel and the average times today aren't that much higher.

oldwelshman

brit66 wrote:

I've had four steel frames (531) in the past but all have been stolen over the years.

From what I remember though I don't think there is a big difference between those and my current alu frame. My best bike is carbon and is certainly a lot lighter, but again, on the flat not a hugh difference in performance I think.

Also, 20 years ago all bikes in the TDF would have been steel and the average times today aren't that much higher.

Interestingly, apart from Millar, Wiggins and a few others, neither are the TT times, even with all the new gizmo's!!

Nine Stone Cowboy

953

DavidBelcher

Steel wins it for me - just. My training bike is all Columbus SLX and my 'cross bike is Columbus Foco (albeit with a Sintema carbon fork). They're both very well-built machines and more than durable in terms of the jobs they do; the Foco inevitably has a lot of punishment thrown at it off-road. On the other hand, my current race bike is a Look KG241 (with Time fork) and as well as the performance being great, the comfort is well ahead of all the past road bikes I've owned. I've only had it 6 months or so - though it was 2nd hand in the first place - so we'll just have to see if it'll match my steel bikes in terms of lifespan.

David

dennisn

Steel - but you knew I would say that. For me it's a bike made out of, basically, two triangles just like all the rest of them. Same geometry, same wheels, same bars, stems,
pedals, cranks, and so on. I have often wondered how steel frames would compare
to all the fancy carbon "aero" frames in a wind tunnel. Seeing as how it has smaller
tubing and thinner(steel) forks I'm betting that there wouldn't be much difference.
Could be wrong. I other words, no one has proven, at least to me, that all the other stuff
is any "better" than the frame I have now. Show me the, so called, proof and peer
reviews of this proof that you all have lodged in your minds about carbon, titanium,
alum.

Dennis Noward

sean65

Steel for me too.

A lot of practical answer here but from a less practical point of view steel frames seem to have a certain je ne sais quoi.

Ride quality perhaps. It hard to define. I'm sure there are plenty of non competitive cyclist out there that have been caught up in the 'lighter is better' marketing guff, when in fact, they might actually find that a slightly heavier steel framed bike might be measurably more enjoyable to ride.

The riding I like is not measured in 100th of seconds. It's not even measured in time. It's measured in pleasure.

Keep it real.

mm1

x5 steel frame bikes in my household (kids bikes made from recycled cola cans):

Include:

Roberts custom road bike (Columbus);
Condor (Deddacci);
Burls custom TT (Columbus);
On-one MTB;
On-one Single Speed.

To be honest, I grew up riding steel (531 frame died last year after 21 years), don't think that any weight "penalty" makes a difference (lets face it, I could do with losing more off my gut than could be saved through riding a lighter frame). I also like the idea of something made for me, by someone with real skill, preferably working in a shed, which accounts for the Roberts and the Burls in preference to a Specialized or Trek. I guess the On-One's were about value; didn't want to spend much but still wanted steel.

Nothing agianst other materials (may yet buy a Carbon Pinarello or De Rosa), but I like the idea that my current frames are likely to last beyond retirement. Dream bike is still a Pegoretti...maybe one day...

synchronicity

Have a look at this custom manufacturer, from my home country:

http://www.thylacinecycles.com/ 8)

Diogenes

Depends on duty and quality.

My road bike is A Cannondale Alu with carbon forks. Comfortable for 100 mile rides, light and accelerates well. Crap for carrying anything. Early Alu frames were renowned for their discomfort and road buzz, modern frames married with carbon forks and seat posts have brought the comfort closer to steel.

Commuter is a cheap Raleigh Pioneer, steel tubes previously used as scaffolding, weighs the same as a baby rhino and accelerates like a snail. However it is bombproof, will take about 100 years to corrode and only a fool would pinch it.

Tourer, 531 Bob Jackson, lightweight, very comfortable, pannier friendly and very stable. If I was adventurous enough to tour in out of the way places then I would definitely go for steel, Alu and carbon difficult to impossible to repair should the worst happen.

If I had the readies I would probably go for a Ti tourer. I am too fat to benefit from a carbon frame, I could reduce the rider/bike combined weight much more effectively by losing the lard!

D

giant_man

Well having owned aluminium and carbon, my next bike will be a steel Colnago, never tried steel but always wanted to delve into this traditional cornerstone of bicycle manufacturer. Keeping it as light as possible will be the challenge for me as I don't intend to use that much carbon, except for the forks that is.

Oh and I will also be buying a ti bike this year as well.

acorn_user

A good friend just bought a second hand Surly Pacer. Within a week, he had sold his Specialized Roubaix....

pliptrot

The only downside with steel is weight, and in context that's not much at all. Corrosion should never be an issue if the bike receives even the most rudimentary maintainance.

I've yet to see build quality on any frame-of any material (I've had a few)- to match Chas Roberts's work. If he built from plywood, I'd buy one.

mm1

pliptrot wrote:

I've yet to see build quality on any frame-of any material (I've had a few)- to match Chas Roberts's work. If he built from plywood, I'd buy one.

Agree about Roberts, but my Burls TT is as nice as my Roberts. No surprise as Justin was inspired by buying his Roberts to get into frame building. Its a dying art and these 2 are exemplars.

pliptrot

mm1,

Thanks for the heads-up about Burls. I'll add to my list for the next major indulgence (that list has -until now- been getting shorter). Perhaps these guys should sell in the US - prices for custom builds tend to be higher here - and there is no shortage of fine steel frames out on club runs, despite this being the back yard of behemoths Cannondale and Trek, etc.etc.

feel

Steel gets my vote - really like the look of the condor fratello.

Mind i'm speaking from a position of total ignorance as have never ridden a full carbon :oops:

sean65

feel wrote:

Steel gets my vote - really like the look of the condor fratello.

It won't be just the looks you'll like, rides great as well. 8)

bonk man

I have a rusty old Mercian 531c [the c bit is important ] skip rescued and bottom bracket shell repaired by Lee Cooper for not a lot of dosh.. Best bike I have ever owned.
Not the fastest or lightest but the most comfortable and easiest to get on with. I use it for training and Sunday rides, maybe a few Audaxes this year.
I am thinking about getting another built when this one finally gives out, it is very, very rusty.