Should I change my frame?

shaw8670

I have a lugless 853 steel frame which is about 10 years old. Longevity is a feature that attracted me to it. I now wonder whether to-

1.replace it with a carbon frame.

2.keep it and replace everything else on it.

3.replace it with a 953 frame, what is the likely weight saving?

4.OBSERVATION- If I get a carbon bike on the cycle scheme it will cost the same as re-equipping my steel frame, so if I went to Ribble for example I'd effectively be getting the frame free v cost of a new groupset etc not on the scheme?

What does anyone think on any of these points?

pliptrot

I have an 853 frame which is lugged - so heavier than yours - and I prefer it to all others. The only advantages of other materials are (1) no corrosion (with some!) (2) weight. The first is easily managed and the second far too hyped, and of no importance to most (I love to see people blow a month's salary on a bike to save 1/2lb over a bike half the cost and still use clincher tyres!).

I would absolutley recommend a can of JP Weigle frame saver and new kit for this frame. However, bike pricing being what it is, and you can get a complete bike for the same money, why not? A steel frame won't age, crack or deteriorate in any way if you put it away and think about it for some future plan. 953 won't save you much weight, according to the bike magazines (and it's too pricey). But then, most of what they write is unreviewed tosh anyway, or -worse- press reviews. Cycling journalism is the most indolent and sloppy of all, and that superlative in this day and age really does say something.

on-yer-bike

pliptrot wrote:

(I love to see people blow a month's salary on a bike to save 1/2lb over a bike half the cost and still use clincher tyres!).

What is the problem with clincher tyres on a light bike?

softlad

pliptrot wrote:

A steel frame won't age, crack or deteriorate in any way if you put it away and think about it for some future plan.

unless the steel frame resides within its own space/time contiuum, I suspect it will age at the same rate as everything else around it - and unless it is vacuum sealed against the atmosphere, the unprotected surfaces will corrode just like any other ferrous metal...

pliptrot

Aging as in deteriorating with time, which steel won't, and if stored indoors very little corrosion. The words obtuse and churlish come to mind.

As for clinchers - the industry has done a great job in persuading us all that the law of diminishing returns doesn't exist and the extra 500 smackers for a 20g weight saving and a red spoke are well worth it. One of the easiest and cheapest ways to get a big improvement in a racing bike is to use tubular tyres. But of course, they are messy and need some skill to set-up, and wouldn't appeal to those who spend big bucks on bikes, who are more fashion victims than cyclists, if my local club is anything to go by.

ride_whenever

If you replace it, stick with steel, the 953 probably won't be as resiliant, so save it as a race/sunday best bike, but steel is awesome in my experience, particularly when done well...

softlad

pliptrot wrote:

Aging as in deteriorating with time, which steel won't, and if stored indoors very little corrosion. The words obtuse and churlish come to mind.

just trying to be clear, that's all. As a journo yourself, I would have thought such clarity would be valued..?

pliptrot

Journalist?

Softlad, indeed.

crankycrank

I'd say take a test ride on some other bikes and see if you prefer something else to your steel. That would be the only way to answer your question. Keep in mind when testing that different wheels and such can make a big difference in feel.