Steel frame. Is there any point?

on-yer-bike

I really fancy a Pegoretti steel framed bike but I'm not sure why. Not to replace the R3-SL but to be greedy and have two bikes. Then I think what is the point of buying a frame that is twice the weight of the one that I have? Haven't the advances in bike frame technology been mostly about saving weight and isn't it just going backwards to buy a steel frame? Yes, there is the retro thing of having and old steel frame but that's more of a style consideration. Pegorettis aren't retro they are 'modern' steel frames with carbon forks, but what is the point when there are lighter better performing materials now available? Are they just a trendy fashion statement made even trendier by the likes of Rapha?

moonshine

yes...

feel, heritage, aesthetics, style, repairability/ durability...etc
I cut around on a 20 year old steel fixed gear (with steel 1" forks) & full SKS mudguards all winter and for commuting...i wonder how many 20 yr old carbon bikes we will see?

go on.. you're worth it....

APIII

I think the likes of Pegoretti et al are trying to dispel the myth that improvement is all about lower weight. Like you say, they are modern road bikes, not a nostalgia trip, and by all accounts, the race models are as stiff as anything you'd find from a mass produced carbon fibre frame. I'd like one myself, for a similar reason to you, they're very seductive!

upsetter

Are you trolling here perchance :roll:

There is a ride quality to a (good) steel framed bike that is difficult to explain - but i'll try....

I have a Casati Laser - dedaccia zero replica (modern stuff with different elements added - I'm no materials scientist) that weighs c 1400g and is beautifully custom made by true craftsmen - not (mass produced) pressed in a mould in a factory in the far east (not that there is anything at all wrong with this) - It is a joy to behold IMO.

The ride is fantastic - very smooth and responsive, I can only compare it to a Focus Cayo (now sold) that was dead and lifelessin comparison but that was a bottom end carbon bike and I'm sure that higher end one would feel different/better.

It cost a fair bit - as Pegoretti's do (I almost bought one but preferred the Casati) but it is custom built to my dimensions and unique.

IMO - if you are spending 2 - 3k on a bike you are best off going down the custom route.

I'm not a Carbon/Ti/Alu hater - I'd love a quality offering from each and as soon as I sell my wife and children I will.

ugo.santalucia

I only ride steel bikes, but I have to say I don't feel any special difference with any carbon bike I have tried (even for prolonged rides and tours).

However, I like the look of slim steel tubes and that's good enough for me. Thy're neither better nor worse, just up to your taste.

There is the timeless issue as well: carbon bikes ages quickly, meaning that your Cervelo R3 of saying 2006, in 2010 looks like an old frame, while a steel bike looks stunning forever, a bit like buying a Jaguar E type... it will always look stunning

vorsprung

All materials are different

All bike designs are different

Saving weight isn't the end goal of all bike design

At the moment I have a steel, Aluminium and Carbon bike. I did have a Ti bike but broke it

Let's talk about ride quality instead of weight

The Aluminium bike is a Orbea Gavia. It's a standard cheap racing bike from 2004, with carbon forks. In terms of ride it can be harsh, especially on roads with large bumps. But the carbon fork is very effective for high frequency noise. The acceleration of the bike was quite remarkable and the lower position meant it felt faster too.

The steel bike is a Cotic Roadrat. It has steel forks and 28mm tyres and I use it for commuting. The ride generally is better than the Orbea, but the difference is quite subtle. On a rough road you'd say the two bikes were both as bad, the 28mm tyres helped though. Not the fastest bike in the world but then it wasn't ever in a hurry. Except when I needed to be at the pub for the first round. Article about the steel bike on the blog here

The broken Ti bike was a custom Setavento. It had 28mm tyres and a carbon fork. The ride quality was clearly superior to the steel or Al bike. Even on a really rough road the bike tried to protect the rider. Because it was so light it climbed well. But the Aluminium Orbea was stiffer and felt more responsive. Several articles about the Ti bike on the blog here

The carbon bike is new, it's a Specialized Roubaix. The ride quality is still under analysis but first impressions are that the amount of "high frequency" noise or buzz coming through from the road is more than the Ti bike but less than the Aluminium or Steel bike. On rough roads it is amazing though. The frame seems to absorb medium sized lumps and holes, no sting at all. The weight is the same as the Ti bike for climbing and the stiffness for accelloration is better than the previous winner, the Aluminium bike. Photos of the carbon bike here

inseine

There is the timeless issue as well: carbon bikes ages quickly, meaning that your Cervelo R3 of saying 2006, in 2010 looks like an old frame, while a steel bike looks stunning forever, a bit like buying a Jaguar E type... it will always look stunning

I don't buy into this at all, with cars or bikes. I remember when aluminium came out with thicker tubes and suddenly steel frames looked old. They are nice now that they are classic and I wish I kept all the 753, 653, 531SL frames that I gave/threw away (!) but at the time..........
I spend my days trying to invent the future, but i still think I'm right

rich164h

Indeed, and it's not the material that makes it look dated, it's the often unusal shape (especially for something like a Cervelo) and the paintwork/graphics.

Take the Cannondale supersix as an example, the shape won't look dated in a few year as it's fairly traditional. As for the paintwork, well I imagine that the "team" colours however will date but the exposed carbon/black won't.

on-yer-bike

upsetter wrote:

Are you trolling here perchance :roll:

.

What is trolling?

APIII

rich164h wrote:

Indeed, and it's not the material that makes it look dated, it's the often unusal shape (especially for something like a Cervelo) and the paintwork/graphics.

Take the Cannondale supersix as an example, the shape won't look dated in a few year as it's fairly traditional. As for the paintwork, well I imagine that the "team" colours however will date but the exposed carbon/black won't.

Not sure if I agree with this either. I'm not a particular fan of cervelo, but I think the soloist will probably be looked upon as a bit of a classic in years to come. They have to become unfashionable before they can become fashionable again! Look at the recent interest in Colnago C40's and C50's. 2 or 3 years ago they were seen as a bit dated, garish colour schemes, etc. If you've got a C40 in Mapei colours you're probably the height of fashion right now.

Hoopdriver

I have a Pegoretti - a Luigino - and it is an absolutely lovely bike that rides like a dream. As for your quibbles regarding the supposed weight penalty of steel - come on, reality check here. Are you truly so supremely lean and fit, so superbly mated to your bike, and with with such a finely honed style that the difference of a few hundred grams is going to make a material difference to your performance? If so, I congratulate you - but then you would already be on a pro team with your gear being supplied for you not trolling a forum. Yet here you are.

wicked

The dated aspect is true IMO.
Carbon bikes usually have funky tube shapes which will age badly but some are quite traditional looking. The modern bikes do tend to change colour schemes every year though and that does date them. If you get a master for example that has a paint scheme that has been around for years and already a classic.
A MGB has aged a lot better than a MGF!

calvjones

wicked wrote:

The dated aspect is true IMO.
Carbon bikes usually have funky tube shapes which will age badly but some are quite traditional looking. The modern bikes do tend to change colour schemes every year though and that does date them. If you get a master for example that has a paint scheme that has been around for years and already a classic.
A MGB has aged a lot better than a MGF!

Indeed. if anyone has an 'unfashionable' early Look they're looking to free-cycle, please PM me .

desweller

Steel has a high elastic limit and a finite fatigue limit (meaning that, if you keep the stresses below a certain level, you can flex it as many times as you want and it will not yield).

Aluminium is not very elastic and has an distinct fatigue limit (so, no matter how low the stress, if you flex it enough times it will definitely yield).

This means that you can design a steel structure to a certain yield stress target and incorporate quite a lot of compliance without risking fatigue failure, whereas you will have to prioritise cyclic stress resistance in an aluminium structure due to its poor fatigue characteristics. This results in a much stiffer aluminium structure, as you can't allow the same amount of flex as steel or you will get fatigue failure.

That's why alu bikes feel harsher than steel ones.

CFRP is characterised in a slightly different way, but in general it has good fatigue life and excellent specific strength, so you can build a strong, light, flexible structure without having to prioritise fatigue resistance in the way that you do for aluminium.

inseine

Hoopdriver, I just don't get what you defenders of steel are talking about. I like all types of bikes and steel frames can be lovely too but why do you have to 'defend' steel? All this rubbish about being 'so superbly mated to your bike, and with with such a finely honed style' could equally be applied to your frame, which lets face it cost a packet 'cos it's made by a famous name. You bought it cos you like and people buy carbon bikes cos they like em. Problem?

Hoopdriver

No problem, to each their own. Quite clearly I spent a packet buying a bike because I liked that bike, others can certainly spend that or double for all I care on whatever frame they like. It's not about 'defending' steel. I just weary of the facile argument about weight. These people - and not know you i don't know if you're one of them - go on as if a couple hundred grams was an anvil they were lugging on their backs. It's absurd.

Buy the bike you like to ride - be in carbon, steel, aluminium, titanium, bamboo or whatever. Just spare me the rubbish about weight and that even more wearisome routine about 'stiffness'.

eh

Oh dear another materials thread full of junk and the mythical properties of steel and ti.

and by all accounts, the race models are as stiff as anything you'd find from a mass produced carbon fibre frame.

Utter rubbish, unless they are engineered by a clown.

Look if you aren't a racer then any expensive bike will probably do the job and ride lovely, so just pick on colour, price, toss of a coin whatever. If you race get carbon or on a budget aluminium, from on of the main brands and you won't go far wrong.

simonaspinall

DesWeller wrote:

Steel has a high elastic limit and a finite fatigue limit (meaning that, if you keep the stresses below a certain level, you can flex it as many times as you want and it will not yield).

Aluminium is not very elastic and has an distinct fatigue limit (so, no matter how low the stress, if you flex it enough times it will definitely yield).

This means that you can design a steel structure to a certain yield stress target and incorporate quite a lot of compliance without risking fatigue failure, whereas you will have to prioritise cyclic stress resistance in an aluminium structure due to its poor fatigue characteristics. This results in a much stiffer aluminium structure, as you can't allow the same amount of flex as steel or you will get fatigue failure.

That's why alu bikes feel harsher than steel ones.

CFRP is characterised in a slightly different way, but in general it has good fatigue life and excellent specific strength, so you can build a strong, light, flexible structure without having to prioritise fatigue resistance in the way that you do for aluminium.

That's probably the best description of frame material qualities i've read on here (speaking as a non-techy)

So what's the characteristics of Ti? I was warned off them as apparently it's often difficult to tell when they are fatigued and they will just 'go' without warning, unlike alu which develops visible stress fatigue.

Hoopdriver

Exactly

APIII

eh wrote:

Oh dear another materials thread full of junk and the mythical properties of steel and ti.

and by all accounts, the race models are as stiff as anything you'd find from a mass produced carbon fibre frame.

Utter rubbish, unless they are engineered by a clown.

Look if you aren't a racer then any expensive bike will probably do the job and ride lovely, so just pick on colour, price, toss of a coin whatever. If you race get carbon or on a budget aluminium, from on of the main brands and you won't go far wrong.

Idioms: by all accounts
from all the reports [that are available]; according to what everyone is saying.

Just going on the opinions of people who have owned or ridden Pegorettis. No need to throw your toys out the pram :roll:

upsetter

@ on-yer-bike, I didn't think you were hence the smiley thing but to enlighten you....

Trolling - an Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Frame materials and the merits of the various variaties can be a fairly emotive subject don't you know

on-yer-bike

Hoopdriver wrote:

Are you truly so supremely lean and fit, so superbly mated to your bike, and with with such a finely honed style that the difference of a few hundred grams is going to make a material difference to your performance? .

Yes

Hoopdriver

Lucky you. The only remaining area in which you could possibly improve you performance is to shave those grams, to grab that elusive half a percent advantage over the rest. So, tell me, how'd you do in the Tour this year?

FransJacques

APIII wrote:

I think the likes of Pegoretti et al are trying to dispel the myth that improvement is all about lower weight. Like you say, they are modern road bikes, not a nostalgia trip, and by all accounts, the race models are as stiff as anything you'd find from a mass produced carbon fibre frame. I'd like one myself, for a similar reason to you, they're very seductive!

That above, is a good summary of what Pergoretti (and others) seem to stand for - taking steel forward. A lot of guys (many in the UK) are on a nostalga trip whereas if you look back at the pix from the HMBS there are some builders who are forward looking - maybe talk to them to see if they have something for you - Vanilla Cycles, Sycip, Indy Fab, Serotta, etc. Hell, even Salsa makes a nice steel bike.

Why buy steel? Buy it for the look or feel but do NOT expect it to out-carbon carbon. I made this mistake with a Colnago CT2 thinking it would outperform a 1000gram top-end carbon frame - it didn't - it was lovely and handled like a race car but it's BB wasn't that stiff and it felt heavy on climbs (was 1650 grams). It had a nice ride though.

But looks-wise who would NOT want one of these in the stable? : http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... 27&start=0

Holy fricken hell that's bike porn - the small tubes, the saddle to 'bars relationship, the low prof rims, the crankset, the deep drop bars, etc....

simonaspinall

But looks-wise who would NOT want one of these in the stable? : http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... 27&start=0

That is pure sex - Wants it! 8)

That is exactly what i'm looking for. Though I wouldn't be so vulgar as to ask how much it cost...

moonshine

Frame & Forks are abour £1500... then the rest of the bits.

I've been looking at one for a while.....longingly......

inseine

If we took another point of view and imagined we'd all be been riding carbon fibre frames for ever and along came this new material....steel! I wonder how we'd respond? Well it's heavier, less stiff and it rusts but t looks great! Would we think it looks great if we hadn't a nostalgic memory of our lost youth?

upsetter

Rusts?? - your beginning to live up to your username....

Hoopdriver

Ever heard of XCR or 953? Or, for that matter, regular maintenance?

dombo6

simonaspinall wrote:

But looks-wise who would NOT want one of these in the stable? : http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum ... 27&start=0

That is pure sex - Wants it! 8)

That is exactly what i'm looking for. Though I wouldn't be so vulgar as to ask how much it cost...

+1 bellissimo bicicleta!

TMR

on-yer-bike wrote:

What is trolling?

Being a tw@t basically. Looking to cause an argument.