Is pro-metal dead?

stickman

Are there any non-carbon bikes in the peloton or on the track?



(Maybe we should say 'c*rb*n')

ynyswen24

I doubt it. As far as I know Tom Boonen was the last pro rider on the road to use non carbon when he had a rebadged Pegoretti instead of a stock Specialized to help with his dodgy back. Think that was 2007. As for the track, it's more likely that some riders might be using steel or aluminium, especially on the 6 Day scene but others may know more...

majormantra

Wasn't Skil-Shimano on alu frames til 2008 or 09? I can't recall the brand though.

stickman

I think the bike companies and teams are like sheep. How can anyone even think of using carbon when there's stuff like 953 and 931? Then there's the Columbus stuff.
If I was the boss of Sky my first thoughts would be: how can we get something sorted out so we are supporting British companies like Reynolds and builders of the Bob Jackson type?
I think this part of cycling is very sad.

ynyswen24

stickman wrote:

I think the bike companies and teams are like sheep. How can anyone even think of using carbon when there's stuff like 953 and 931? Then there's the Columbus stuff.
If I was the boss of Sky my first thoughts would be: how can we get something sorted out so we are supporting British companies like Reynolds and builders of the Bob Jackson type?
I think this part of cycling is very sad.

953 and 931 are great materials and I'm sure the same is true of Columbus XCR but getting the stuff is ridiculous. I know of framebuilders in the UK who have 6 month lead times, not to build a frame just to get hold of the tubesets. Reynolds stainless is made in the US and the manufacturing of it is to special order. It seems unlikely that a pro team could gaurantee being provided with enough for a fleet of bikes, then you have crash replacements.
The economics of pro cycling mean that carbon frames are the best solution for racing. The teams can be provided with them and the manufacturers can sell them to us punters to recoup the cost of sponsorship. That's just not the way that either the UK (& I would guess European tubing) industry or the custom builders who rely on Reynolds et al are set up.

ugo.santalucia

It is for now... carbon won't last forever as a building material. I have the feeling that right now there is more innovation in good old metallurgy than in composite technology.

I think the future is in ceramic materials, glasses... once the main concerns about low tensile strength will be overcome, they are the obvious choice in high performance, lightweight applications

stickman

I'd be interested to know the weights of a built-up bike and availabity of tubings from 853 down to 631.
I think it's a tragedy if teams can never have metal bikes again.

ugo.santalucia

stickman wrote:

I'd be interested to know the weights of a built-up bike and availabity of tubings from 853 down to 631.
I think it's a tragedy if teams can never have metal bikes again.

These days one can build a steel frame at 1200 grams using stainless. More traditional steels build at 1500-1700 grams

Carbon frames in use weigh in at 900-1000 grams

froze

hmm, well there is someone making a complete ready to ride steel bike that weighs just a tick over 14 pounds...it's illegal to race in UCI races because it's under the 14.999 min weight limit. See: http://www.rodcycle.com/ click on the left panel that says Rodriguez bicycles, then scroll down till you get to The Outlaw and click on it.

stickman

That's easy to sort out, replace the carbon fork with a steel one of the right weight. Which i'd do anyway.

byke68

Maybe, but Black Metal will live forever! Not sure about Death Metal. Emo? Pah!....................Hang on.......... wrong forum....................

ugo.santalucia

The real problem with steel is lack of advertising space. Only carbon allows to build very large surfaces, light enough and big enough to stick logos visible on TV. That of course explains the obsession for high profile rims too...
Advertising is money...

Monty Dog

The problem with metal bikes is the need for skilled or semi-skilled workers and relatively slow production rates whereas with carbon, it's semi-skilled at most and you can churn them out cheaply by the thousands - it probably costs about £100 to make a carbon frame and forks and many people are gullible enough to pay a premium for a privilege.

ugo.santalucia

I still think if the PROs wanted to ride steel, there wouldn't be any problem... but where do you place the increasing number of sponsor logos? Look at the photos of the 1980s... it's impossible to get the make of the bike... wirth large tubes and aero wheels, you've got plenty of surface to cover with adverts.

Reveneues from sponsors and TV keeps the ball rolling, failing that, there wouldn't be a Tour de France

UCB

`Phillipe Gilbert used alloy from canyon....said it was better than the aerohead apparently

compositepro

Ha Ha this is a good question

Are we talking Uk manufacturing here (the reference to bob jackson) or in general?

I can tell you plans are afoot to kick this UK manufacturing in steel right up the arse.

stickman

Things are looking brighter though, with a British 953 bike equiped team http://road.cc/content/news/70015-madis ... 013-season

Beatmaker

stickman wrote:

Things are looking brighter though, with a British 953 bike equiped team http://road.cc/content/news/70015-madis ... 013-season

I'm really looking forward to seeing the Madison Genesis team bike.

ugo.santalucia

stickman wrote:

Things are looking brighter though, with a British 953 bike equiped team http://road.cc/content/news/70015-madis ... 013-season

Shame the team won't be invited to any race that matters, but one has to start somewhere, I suppose... :roll:

thegreatdivide

You lot are living in a dream world.

thegreatdivide

"The problem with metal bikes is the need for skilled or semi-skilled workers and relatively slow production rates whereas with carbon, it's semi-skilled at most"

Hmm, not really. It's because one is using an outdate method of production. Just because you can work a welding torch doens't mean you're a brain surgeon. Or are you saying that people in the Far East aren't very skilled and a bit dim?

speshsteve

bizarre thread, you can get a CF frame at sub 700g. Regardless of the UCI limit this means team have real options on where they decide to then put the weight...elec groupsets, areo wheels etc.

There is a minimum weight is F1 yet you don't think engineers would want to go back to ALu when they have all the potential engineering options of aero (far more complex tube shapes that can be replicated and productionised once the moulds are created), optimum weight placement etc etc

LegendLust

ugo.santalucia wrote:

stickman wrote:

Things are looking brighter though, with a British 953 bike equiped team http://road.cc/content/news/70015-madis ... 013-season

Shame the team won't be invited to any race that matters, but one has to start somewhere, I suppose... :roll:

What makes you say that? Look where Endura started off. With Roger Hammond's contacts they should have a good chance

hstiles

From the photos I saw last year, Katusha were riding alloy-framed Canyons in the Tour of Flanders last year.

greasedscotsman

hstiles wrote:

From the photos I saw last year, Katusha were riding alloy-framed Canyons in the Tour of Flanders last year.

Katusha were riding Focus last year. They did use the Ulimate AL at Roubaix this year, but used the Ultimate CF SLX and Aeroad CF at Flanders.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pho ... iew/216876

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gallery/a ... 604?img=55

mike6

thegreatdivide wrote:

You lot are living in a dream world.

And whats wrong with that? Some of the appeal of cycle racing, to me anyway, Is the sepia tinged, romantic past.

Dont get me wrong, I love my carbon bike, but I have to say I personally think the thin round tubes of a steel frame look fantastic. Just right somehow. My carbon frame is light and comfortable, but lets face it those fat, dare I say, mountain bike style, structures, are pig ugly.

bigmat

Nice to see steel back in the peloton. Not convinced steel bikes have any practical advantage over carbon though. Generally heavier and more expensive, therefore unlikely to be making a resurgence any time soon.

Alu bikes are still pretty common at the highest level, CAAD10's on top of the Mavic support vehicles for example, so metal a long way from dead but never going to be the default choice when carbon is available.

Jez mon

speshsteve wrote:

bizarre thread, you can get a CF frame at sub 700g. Regardless of the UCI limit this means team have real options on where they decide to then put the weight...elec groupsets, areo wheels etc.

There is a minimum weight is F1 yet you don't think engineers would want to go back to ALu when they have all the potential engineering options of aero (far more complex tube shapes that can be replicated and productionised once the moulds are created), optimum weight placement etc etc

This.

CFRP basically gives you the option of designing your bike exactly how you want it in a way that welding tubes together doesn't. It's a bonus as an engineer for optimising weight/aero/stiffness/compliance and potentially just as big a bonus for any bike companies looking to differentiate themselves in the market place.

As far as cutting edge/future developments go...well the vast majority of the PhDs at my university are doing stuff with ceramics, not metals.

I think metal frames will always have a place at the bottom end, and as a niche at the top, but I'm not sure I see them being unanimous amongst pros again.

racingcondor

Basically yes. As said above the great thing about carbon is that with good design you can make a more aero, stronger frame and do it lighter than a metal frame. That allows you to build up a bike light enough to hit the 6.9kg limit (or at least get close enough) even with an SRM and electronic shifting installed.

The last Alu I know of was the Canyon mentioned above, the last steel was probably Dan Craven riding the Super Acciaio for Rapha Condor in 2010.

ugo.santalucia

racingcondor wrote:

Basically yes. As said above the great thing about carbon is that with good design you can make a more aero, stronger frame and do it lighter than a metal frame. That allows you to build up a bike light enough to hit the 6.9kg limit (or at least get close enough) even with an SRM and electronic shifting installed.

The last Alu I know of was the Canyon mentioned above, the last steel was probably Dan Craven riding the Super Acciaio for Rapha Condor in 2010.

Are we still going on with aero bullxxit? When you load a bison shaped figure on a set of tiny tubes, what's to worry about the aerodynamic profile of the tubes?
Really, looking back at average in-line races speed and Time trial average speed I don't see this aero advantages making the alleged massive difference.
Gregg Lemond used to win TT at 50 Kmh in exactly the same way Wiggins does today, despite 20 years of massive improvements...
In line, the fastest ever Milan Sanremo was won by Bugno on a steel bike
As for the improvements on the track, track themselves are way faster than they used to be... I'd like to see the pistards of the past on these modern velodromes

stickman

In ordinary peloton riding I don't know what relevance aerodynamics is, there can be obsticles, crashes, tactics of dropping back to let others keep the pace, punctures, etc. etc. etc.