Is steel the holy grail of frame materials?

Rich158

I've always read about the joys of a good steel frame and somewhat dismissed what I'd read as just old codgers hankering after the old times.

I'm now a convert, having had my steel Condor for just over three weeks I can honestly say it's the closest I've ever come to a do it all bike. It feels strong enough to stand up to the rigours of commuting, was fantastic on an Audax last week and was absolutely flying at club training on Tuesday. Coupled to that it feels great to ride, it handles every bit as well as the Madone, feels stiff, and filters out road noise far better than any ally frame does.

I've come to the conclusion that maybe those old codgers know a thing or two. I'm almost at the point that thinking this will be the only road bike I ever need

Oh and at the risk of starting another debate, my first Campy groupset feels fantastic and just keeps working without any fettling needed. I don't think I'll be going back to the big S on road bikes

itboffin

Points finger @ old codger - ha ha!

jonginge

laden or unladen?

UndercoverElephant

wgwarburton

itboffin wrote:

Points finger @ old codger - ha ha!

I reckon there's quite a few of us round here... need a lot of fingers!

is Steel the holy grail? Nope, wouldn't say so, but it is still the best all-round material for most road use. If there's a specific requirement for stiffness or something then other materials may offer something that steel doesn't, but you'll likely lose out elsewhere.
The quest for the ultimate frame material continues... but for now Steel is It.

Came across a nice piece on this recently:
http://www.smartcycles.com/frame_materials.htm

..though there's a few of them around.

It's at the bottom end of the market that steel loses out- really cheap steel frames are heavy and I guess it must be easier to build a cheap Al frame that's a bit lighter than a slightly better steel one(?). Either that or it's just easier to market Al as an upgrade and charge more for it than to try and differentiate between two steel frames that look alike.

Cheers,
W.

asprilla

Given I have family in Zambia, I'm currently trying to get hold of one of these:

http://www.bamboosero.com/bamboosero-road-bike.html

I don't know if it will be better than steel, but I just want it.

il_principe

Rich158 wrote:

Oh and at the risk of starting another debate, my first Campy groupset feels fantastic and just keeps working without any fettling needed. I don't think I'll be going back to the big S on road bikes

Well at least part of your post makes sense...

symo

Errrr no steel it is not. Sorry to come across as an engineering elitist but for me it has to be Titanium. All the benefits of steel in terms of ride compliance, but the removal of steels corrosion. Also its just a tad lighter. Having ridden a compliant carbon frame (R3 and RS by Cervelo) then that trumps steel for me too.

Of course the ultimate material is currently being developed in a lab somewhere for a missile development programme. I was a little disappointed when the M-Trax range of bikes appeared from Raleigh a good few years back, as I thought more of the eastern bloc's exotic military materials would appear on the market.

rjsterry

UndercoverElephant wrote:

In answer t the OP: Yes. And I already have the slippers, so just the pipe to go for the set. I have 3 or 4 little dents in my steel frame that would probably have written off a carbon frame (or at least rendered it untrustworthy).

EDIT: Hydroformed titanium and aluminium all very well, but aesthetically, I prefer the skinnier straighter tube. Carbon is very good at what it does, but does seem to always be destined for Sunday Best bikes due to its brittleness. Also interesting that a lot of Ti and Al bikes use carbon forks - understandable for compliance as compared to Al, but is that because Ti is too stiff as well? Stainless steels (see Enigma) get round the corrosion problems, but are a bit Sunday Best as well due to the price.

Just to confirm my old fart credentials, I prefer ale to that fizzy lager too. IP has probably just turned off his computer in disgust.

Aidy

Titanium.

Robstar24

i like the reference to chasing Tyler Hamilton up a hill in that article, don't think that was a weight issue, you just needed the right 'product'

don_don

Aidy wrote:

Titanium.

+1

kelsen

Asprilla wrote:

Given I have family in Zambia, I'm currently trying to get hold of one of these:

http://www.bamboosero.com/bamboosero-road-bike.html

I don't know if it will be better than steel, but I just want it.

This one...

http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm

greg66_tri_v2.0

Hmm. Steel. How's it react to a flex test (one foot on the ground, one clipped in, push with the clipped in pedal to see how far you can displace the BB area laterally. I had a steel frame once. Do that test, and you had to get off and walk to collect the BB area)?

Ti can be treated in lots of ways to produce different levels of stiffness and compliance, and in that respect it has a versatility not unlike CF. But it's pricey to get a Ti frame "just so" and there aren't many makers who'll do it.

Low end Alu or CF frames can be proper horrible. The lesson I draw from this is that whatever material takes your fancy, make sure the manufacturer produces a good frame with it.

solsurf

rjsterry "Carbon is very good at what it does, but does seem to always be destined for Sunday Best bikes due to its brittleness."

now I'm worried! are you sure about this? Is my carbon Felt going to fall apart? As well as the zipp wheels and handlebars :shock:

Anyway steel is great for some things, I replaced a P7 once with a titanium frame, sold it straight away and bought another P7, so I suppose its not just the material its the design too.

Pross

I think that bike is stunning - would love one, you'd certainly feel a bit exclusive.

I have a steel bike (653) and a carbon. The carbon feels far nicer to me but that could be more to do with the geometry etc. and the steel frame has old school raked forks. The steel may be marginally more comfortable on longer rides but the carbon feels more responsive and agile. Again, this is probably much more to do with geometry than material.

asprilla

kelsen wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Given I have family in Zambia, I'm currently trying to get hold of one of these:

http://www.bamboosero.com/bamboosero-road-bike.html

I don't know if it will be better than steel, but I just want it.

This one...

http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm

Except I can't afford one straight from Callfee. The ones made in Zambia are a Calfee design; he gave it to lots of start ups for making bikes from sustainable materials.

Zambia: Frame and fork for $495 (fairly sure my bro in law can negotiate as discount)
Calfee: Frame and fork £2000

Decisions, decisions.....

UndercoverElephant

I have steel lugs and heat-treated and cut bamboo in my garage waiting for me to get my finger out and build up a frame. I've been waiting for the weather to warm up a bit, as I need to ream out a couple of tube on my lathe, but I guess I'm running out of excuses on that front.

Bamboo was provided by a very helpful forum member.

greg66_tri_v2.0

solsurf wrote:

rjsterry "Carbon is very good at what it does, but does seem to always be destined for Sunday Best bikes due to its brittleness."

now I'm worried! are you sure about this? Is my carbon Felt going to fall apart? As well as the zipp wheels and handlebars :shock:

No.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Pross wrote:

I think that bike is stunning - would love one, you'd certainly feel a bit exclusive.

I have a steel bike (653) and a carbon. The carbon feels far nicer to me but that could be more to do with the geometry etc. and the steel frame has old school raked forks. The steel may be marginally more comfortable on longer rides but the carbon feels more responsive and agile. Again, this is probably much more to do with geometry than material.

Without seeing either frame, I'd say it's because the carbon frame is stiffer. A slack rear triangle will certainly do nothing for stiffness, and that's an example of geometry affecting stiffness, but on the whole, material is key to stiffness.

amnezia

solsurf wrote:

rjsterry "Carbon is very good at what it does, but does seem to always be destined for Sunday Best bikes due to its brittleness."

now I'm worried! are you sure about this? Is my carbon Felt going to fall apart? As well as the zipp wheels and handlebars :shock:

It should be fine but just don't take it outside when its wet or windy or too sunny.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

solsurf wrote:

rjsterry "Carbon is very good at what it does, but does seem to always be destined for Sunday Best bikes due to its brittleness."

now I'm worried! are you sure about this? Is my carbon Felt going to fall apart? As well as the zipp wheels and handlebars :shock:

No.

Absolutely. If you look after it, it's fine. It can handle the jobs it has been designed for no problem. It's just more prone to damage from the abuse that some commuter bikes get (I would never leave a carbon frame locked up at Paddington Station bike racks for example, quite apart from the security aspect).

BTW do any of the engineering tyoes know why you almost never see Ti forks?

I also agree completely with Greg66: whatever the material, if the frame is badly designed and built it will be rubbish - just differently priced rubbish.

gert_lush

Rich158

Greg66 wrote:

Hmm. Steel. How's it react to a flex test (one foot on the ground, one clipped in, push with the clipped in pedal to see how far you can displace the BB area laterally. I had a steel frame once. Do that test, and you had to get off and walk to collect the BB area)?

Ti can be treated in lots of ways to produce different levels of stiffness and compliance, and in that respect it has a versatility not unlike CF. But it's pricey to get a Ti frame "just so" and there aren't many makers who'll do it.

Low end Alu or CF frames can be proper horrible. The lesson I draw from this is that whatever material takes your fancy, make sure the manufacturer produces a good frame with it.

+1 to that, my Condor doesn't have any noticeable flex in the BB area, or anywhere else for that matter. I put the fact that it feels so good down to good design and decent tubing coupled with steels inherent chracteristics.

il_principe

rjsterry wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Carbon is very good at what it does, but does seem to always be destined for Sunday Best bikes due to its brittleness.

Just to confirm my old fart credentials, I prefer ale to that fizzy lager too. IP has probably just turned off his computer in disgust.

Well not quite - I'm an ale man myself, but I don't agree with your Sunday best statement! If I could afford Carbon for the commute then I'd have no compulsion about going down that route. I'm not worried about my Prince breaking anytime soon, that thing is built from aerospace grade CF, so if it's good enough for the new Airbus it's certainly good enough for a lowly bicycle.

gert_lush

My super galaxy is a bit flexy especially when its loaded up with panniers you can feel the back end swerve around if you put the power down. Its much better when its unloaded but still noticable. I love it though big shock when I swap to the aluminium roadbike though :shock:

symo

solsurf wrote:

rjsterry "Carbon is very good at what it does, but does seem to always be destined for Sunday Best bikes due to its brittleness."

now I'm worried! are you sure about this? Is my carbon Felt going to fall apart? As well as the zipp wheels and handlebars :shock:

Well tbh the majority of carbon frames are not being put to the demands of your pro peloton rider. As for the harshness, carbon can be laid up in a variety of ways so that it can be stiff around the BB and flexible where needed at the seat stays. Again look at the Cervelo R3 and RS, both bike designed to be stiff for sprinting and compliant enough for cobbles.

Titanium in its common bike form 6Al-4V has some great elongation (compliance) properties according to the Newnes pocket book of materials (1994; other engineering source books are available from your nearest engineering bookseller.). The seat stays on my planet X road pro take advantage of this, they are thin and curved so that the high tensile strength is used effectively.

If we look at the nearest equivalent steel to reynolds 531, AISI4130 we can see that it offers elongation of 10% in its common form. Whereas for Ti 6Al-4V then it is 14%, so I don't buy steel being more compliant than Ti argument either. (PS the elongation figures are not a fantastic guide to material compliance in a bike frame but give a 'feel' for it, the real test for this would be to look at the creep and S-N curves for both materials).

So it is MHO that Ti is the ultimate "natural material" and Carbon being the ultimate "performance material" if correctly built. Steel sorry nah it goes a funny brown colour if you can't keep it immaculate.

rjsterry

Flippin' Nora, the perils of a throwaway comment. Having been well and truly shot down I would say that the current trend for massive BB junctions on CF frames for stiffness where you really need it, is something that looks difficult to replicate in steel (what with steel coming in tube form. and carbon in 'sheet' form), and I would admit that a real out-of-the-saddle stamp can really flex my frame. But it does spring back, so that energy isn't all wasted, it's just a slower transfer from pedal to wheel.

If money is no object, then I'm sure you can get a better (however you want to measure that) frame from CF or Ti than from steel, but on a more limited budget (I just can't afford Ti) and where durability and longevity are primary concerns, I'd say steel is at least competitive with Al and cheaper CF.

As for the corrosion argument, components still seize into Ti and CF frames every bit as much as steel, and unless you really neglect your bike, frame corrosion isn't really a problem as evidenced by the large number of old steel frames currently being reused as SS and FG.

The economies of scale have obviously changed, since all the major manufacturers went over to Al as their entry level material. My steel frame came as part of a £400 bike, but now steel has become an expensive niche material.

jonginge

rjsterry wrote:

Flippin' Nora, the perils of a throwaway comment. Having been well and truly shot down I would say that the current trend for massive BB junctions on CF frames for stiffness where you really need it, is something that looks difficult to replicate in steel (what with steel coming in tube form. and carbon in 'sheet' form), and I would admit that a real out-of-the-saddle stamp can really flex my frame. But it does spring back, so that energy isn't all wasted, it's just a slower transfer from pedal to wheel.

If money is no object, then I'm sure you can get a better (however you want to measure that) frame from CF or Ti than from steel, but on a more limited budget (I just can't afford Ti) and where durability and longevity are primary concerns, I'd say steel is at least competitive with Al and cheaper CF.

As for the corrosion argument, components still seize into Ti and CF frames every bit as much as steel, and unless you really neglect your bike, frame corrosion isn't really a problem as evidenced by the large number of old steel frames currently being reused as SS and FG.

The economies of scale have obviously changed, since all the major manufacturers went over to Al as their entry level material. My steel frame came as part of a £400 bike, but now steel has become an expensive niche material.

Bzzzt. Fizzics fail.

rjsterry

JonGinge wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Flippin' Nora, the perils of a throwaway comment. Having been well and truly shot down I would say that the current trend for massive BB junctions on CF frames for stiffness where you really need it, is something that looks difficult to replicate in steel (what with steel coming in tube form. and carbon in 'sheet' form), and I would admit that a real out-of-the-saddle stamp can really flex my frame. But it does spring back, so that energy isn't all wasted, it's just a slower transfer from pedal to wheel.

If money is no object, then I'm sure you can get a better (however you want to measure that) frame from CF or Ti than from steel, but on a more limited budget (I just can't afford Ti) and where durability and longevity are primary concerns, I'd say steel is at least competitive with Al and cheaper CF.

As for the corrosion argument, components still seize into Ti and CF frames every bit as much as steel, and unless you really neglect your bike, frame corrosion isn't really a problem as evidenced by the large number of old steel frames currently being reused as SS and FG.

The economies of scale have obviously changed, since all the major manufacturers went over to Al as their entry level material. My steel frame came as part of a £400 bike, but now steel has become an expensive niche material.

Bzzzt. Fizzics fail.

I'll admit to being a little rusty, but do explain. As far as I remember, if you flex a spring, then you are storing energy in it, e.g.old fashioned alarm clock. Admittedly less efficient than having a more rigid BB, but still, what am I missing.

jonginge

The recoil is lateral which your legs have to absorb. No additional forward momentum but slighty more tired legs.