Is pro-metal dead?

2

Comments

  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    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

    You can't really compare one time trial to another. What was the course like? How windy was it on that day? Doesn't really mean very much. And doesn't Boardman hold the fastest ever TT at the Tour on this bike?

    Boardman1.jpg
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    stickman wrote:
    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.

    You have to ride at the front at some point to win. And even if your a sprinter and only ride at the front for the last few hundred metres, how about giving your team aero kit. Think of the energy a team like HTC could save even if just setting tempo at the front of the bunch.
  • Strith
    Strith Posts: 541
    In answer to the question, yes. That's not hard to see really is it.
    Aero may only offer marginal gains frame wise and in road racing, but every little helps and any racer will take any advantage they can get no matter how small.
    I think the ability to build in strength or flexibility where it's needed is one of the major benifits of carbon and to some degree.
    Alu makes a good frame still I think, for racing at least, if I want to ride hard I'll always choose my caad over my steel winter bike.
    Steel bike are nice for pottering around town or as winter trainers, but thats about it IMHO.
  • lotus49
    lotus49 Posts: 763
    Strith wrote:
    Steel bike are nice for pottering around town or as winter trainers, but thats about it IMHO.

    I agree with the general sentiment that we are unlikely to see pro teams moving away from composites but this just isn't true.

    Steel is robust, easy to repair and lasts a very long time. Modern steels are also light and while they won't compete with full carbon, they are suitable for far more than pottering around town.

    I have just finished reading "It's All About the Bike" by Robert Penn describing the process of assembling his dream bike. What did he choose to make the frame from (actually it was made by Brian Rourke)? He chose Reynolds 953 because he wants it to last.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    lotus49 wrote:
    Strith wrote:
    Steel bike are nice for pottering around town or as winter trainers, but thats about it IMHO.

    I agree with the general sentiment that we are unlikely to see pro teams moving away from composites but this just isn't true.

    Steel is robust, easy to repair and lasts a very long time. Modern steels are also light and while they won't compete with full carbon, they are suitable for far more than pottering around town.

    Absolutely. IMO, despite me being a carbon convert, there is always something a bit BSO about non-steel bikes. The joy of a steel bike is you can leave it in a shed for decades and, if it doesn't crumble to dust when you dig it out, you can get out and ride it without worry even if it isn't exactly straight. With carbon you'd worry about its unknown history and you'd end up just buying a new frame. Besides, you don't see many carbon touring bikes either. Carbon only really matters if weight saving is important.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • ethanhayes
    ethanhayes Posts: 112
    lotus49 wrote:
    Strith wrote:
    He chose Reynolds 953 because he wants it to last.

    Why on earth wouldn't a Carbon bike last, if looked after properly?! To claim 953 has any sort of advantage in terms of longevity over carbon in nonsense.
  • mouth
    mouth Posts: 1,195
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I still think if the PROs wanted to ride steel, there wouldn't be any problem...

    No. They get what they're given. If there was enough of a revolt then you might see some metal bikes back in the peloton but until then it ain't gonna happen.

    Ethan, pro teams don't care about how long carbon lasts.
    The only disability in life is a poor attitude.
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    To me, 953 is the ultimate material, I can't imagine choosing any material over it. (If I ever had the money) I wouldn't care if it is slightly heavier than carbon.
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • simon_masterson
    simon_masterson Posts: 2,740
    Strith wrote:
    Steel bike are nice for pottering around town or as winter trainers, but thats about it IMHO.

    You haven't much experience with them, have you? ;)
    Retro(ish) TT 2017-
    Fixed TT 2015-2016
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    stickman wrote:
    To me, 953 is the ultimate material, I can't imagine choosing any material over it. (If I ever had the money) I wouldn't care if it is slightly heavier than carbon.

    Have I got this right? You think it's the ultimate material and yet, you don't have a bike made from it?
  • MountainMonster
    MountainMonster Posts: 7,423
    My old Cotic mountain bike was steel, and compared to the carbon long travel bikes, I much preferred the ride of the steel. I'm not sure, but I think it was 953.
    My London Road
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    stickman wrote:
    To me, 953 is the ultimate material, I can't imagine choosing any material over it. (If I ever had the money) I wouldn't care if it is slightly heavier than carbon.

    Have I got this right? You think it's the ultimate material and yet, you don't have a bike made from it?

    How is a person's monetary situation relevant to liking or not liking something?
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • Strith
    Strith Posts: 541
    Simon Masterson wrote:
    Strith wrote:
    Steel bike are nice for pottering around town or as winter trainers, but thats about it IMHO.

    You haven't much experience with them, have you? ;)

    Quite the contrary, I have ridden plenty of various kinds, and I still own one. What's your point?
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    stickman wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    stickman wrote:
    To me, 953 is the ultimate material, I can't imagine choosing any material over it. (If I ever had the money) I wouldn't care if it is slightly heavier than carbon.

    Have I got this right? You think it's the ultimate material and yet, you don't have a bike made from it?

    How is a person's monetary situation relevant to liking or not liking something?

    How do you know it's the ultimate material when you haven't got a bike made from it? You could win the lottery at the weekend, buy one next week and not like it.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Strith wrote:
    Simon Masterson wrote:
    Strith wrote:
    Steel bike are nice for pottering around town or as winter trainers, but thats about it IMHO.

    You haven't much experience with them, have you? ;)

    Quite the contrary, I have ridden plenty of various kinds, and I still own one. What's your point?

    I think he was assuming that you have good judgement!

    Seriously, you've ridden plenty of steel bikes (presumably including good quality ones) and you genuinely don't think they are good for anything but pottering or winter training on? :shock:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    stickman wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    stickman wrote:
    To me, 953 is the ultimate material, I can't imagine choosing any material over it. (If I ever had the money) I wouldn't care if it is slightly heavier than carbon.

    Have I got this right? You think it's the ultimate material and yet, you don't have a bike made from it?

    How is a person's monetary situation relevant to liking or not liking something?

    How do you know it's the ultimate material when you haven't got a bike made from it? You could win the lottery at the weekend, buy one next week and not like it.

    To be fair, the fact that someone doesn't own a 953 frame doesn't give any indication of how much experience they already have of riding 953 frame bikes.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    Rolf F wrote:
    To be fair, the fact that someone doesn't own a 953 frame doesn't give any indication of how much experience they already have of riding 953 frame bikes.

    That's fair enough. OK, Stickman, what do you think 953 is the ultimate material to build a pro's bike from?
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,803
    Mouth wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I still think if the PROs wanted to ride steel, there wouldn't be any problem...

    No. They get what they're given. If there was enough of a revolt then you might see some metal bikes back in the peloton but until then it ain't gonna happen.

    Brailsford: Right Bradley. We’re going to be riding steel bikes in 2014.
    Wiggins: Fuxk off!

    Teams are looking for marginal gains, not a nice looking bike that gets folk misty eyed. Case example – the pig ugly S5.

    But I’m not averse to steel. I own a Colnago Master which is lovely for rides when the sun is shining and I don’t intend to break a sweat. It’s also a work of art.
  • giropaul
    giropaul Posts: 414
    Teams are supplied by bike brands who do this to promote bulk sales, of high end market bikes

    Therefore they supply what they want to sell, and can make in big quantities. They even make their team issue frames look like the mass market ones. For example, Pinarello will sell a lot of Dogmas, but even more looky likey FPs and the like.

    All this means carbon. There's profit in carbon, and it's easy to produce in bulk once the sunk costs are committed. The fact that it's also possibly the most suitable material for high end competition is probably secondary.
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    To be fair, the fact that someone doesn't own a 953 frame doesn't give any indication of how much experience they already have of riding 953 frame bikes.

    That's fair enough. OK, Stickman, what do you think 953 is the ultimate material to build a pro's bike from?

    I did say "to me", not that every person should also think it.
    I own four steel bikes so I know I prefer steel. I know about Reynolds, I know about 953, so that's what i'd want.
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • racingcondor
    racingcondor Posts: 1,434
    "ugo.santalucia wrote:
    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?

    At the margin yes I think Aero makes a difference. Pit Cavendish on an aero bike against Cavendish on a round tubed frame in an identical sprint and the aero Cav will win (albit by a cm or two). Obviously the vastly more important factor in a real sprint is getting your leadout right and being on the right wheel but why throw away a few cm that you can have for free.

    On a more personal note you won't see me buying aero anything (well, perhaps a skinsuit) because at the price I'm willing to spend I'd much rather have top end metal and the ride quality that comes from buying the best of the 'old' rather than the worst of the 'new' (for example I'm finally building those sprint wheels this Christmas. Ambrosio Crono laced to DA hubs).
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    stickman wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    To be fair, the fact that someone doesn't own a 953 frame doesn't give any indication of how much experience they already have of riding 953 frame bikes.

    That's fair enough. OK, Stickman, what do you think 953 is the ultimate material to build a pro's bike from?

    I did say "to me", not that every person should also think it.
    I own four steel bikes so I know I prefer steel. I know about Reynolds, I know about 953, so that's what i'd want.

    But I thought we are talking about Pro bikes, aren't we?
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    In time trialling they want to get every tiny fraction of a second aerodynamically because they could potentially lose by a 100th of a second. But the bike is only a small part of it, the biggest factor is rider aerodynamics. In non-time trialling, riding steel over 100+ miles, the comfort factor may add numerous seconds that would be better than aerodynamics of a bike that is stopping for punctures, crashes etc.
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    stickman wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    To be fair, the fact that someone doesn't own a 953 frame doesn't give any indication of how much experience they already have of riding 953 frame bikes.

    That's fair enough. OK, Stickman, what do you think 953 is the ultimate material to build a pro's bike from?

    I did say "to me", not that every person should also think it.
    I own four steel bikes so I know I prefer steel. I know about Reynolds, I know about 953, so that's what i'd want.

    But I thought we are talking about Pro bikes, aren't we?


    Yes, if I was a pro rider i'd abslolutely want 953.
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    stickman wrote:
    In time trialling they want to get every tiny fraction of a second aerodynamically because they could potentially lose by a 100th of a second. But the bike is only a small part of it, the biggest factor is rider aerodynamics. In non-time trialling, riding steel over 100+ miles, the comfort factor may add numerous seconds that would be better than aerodynamics of a bike that is stopping for punctures, crashes etc.
    Hang on a second, I ride a steel bike and I get punctures as often as the next rider...
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    I'm saying on an ordinary stage, whatever the bike, there were will be many reasons to stop or drop back etc.
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    stickman wrote:
    Yes, if I was a pro rider i'd abslolutely want 953.

    Really? You not interested in aerodynamics or the increased component choice you will get with a lighter frame? Just because you think you less likely to get puctures or crash? They did used to get them before carbon frames came along.
  • lotus49
    lotus49 Posts: 763
    ethanhayes wrote:
    lotus49 wrote:
    Strith wrote:
    He chose Reynolds 953 because he wants it to last.

    Why on earth wouldn't a Carbon bike last, if looked after properly?! To claim 953 has any sort of advantage in terms of longevity over carbon in nonsense.

    No, it's not nonsense.

    We know steel bikes last because there are plenty of 50 year old steel bikes that are still perfectly serviceable. There aren't any 50 year old carbon bikes in any sort of condition. On the one hand we have a lot of evidence and on the other hand none. That doesn't prove that steel last longer but we know it lasts. We don't know anything of the sort with carbon. Added to which is the fact that steel bikes can be repaired, which will also extend their life.

    I wouldn't bet any money on the pig ugly carbon bikes being produced at the moment still being in use in ten years let alone fifty.

    PS I have no axe to grind either way. My bike is made of aluminium.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    lotus49 wrote:
    Added to which is the fact that steel bikes can be repaired, which will also extend their life.

    That's not really going to matter to a pro team.
    lotus49 wrote:
    I wouldn't bet any money on the pig ugly carbon bikes being produced at the moment still being in use in ten years let alone fifty.

    I still have a carbon bike that I bought in '91. To be honest, the bonded aluminium fork worries me more than the carbon frame.
  • stickman
    stickman Posts: 791
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    stickman wrote:
    Yes, if I was a pro rider i'd abslolutely want 953.

    Really? You not interested in aerodynamics or the increased component choice you will get with a lighter frame? Just because you think you less likely to get puctures or crash? They did used to get them before carbon frames came along.


    As I said, not for an ordinary stage. And I never said any type of bike gets more punctures or crashes.
    Bikes, saddles and stuff

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21720915@N03/
    More stuff:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65587945@N00/

    Gears - Obscuring the goodness of singlespeed
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    stickman wrote:
    greasedscotsman wrote:
    stickman wrote:
    Yes, if I was a pro rider i'd abslolutely want 953.

    Really? You not interested in aerodynamics or the increased component choice you will get with a lighter frame? Just because you think you less likely to get puctures or crash? They did used to get them before carbon frames came along.


    As I said, not for an ordinary stage. And I never said any type of bike gets more punctures or crashes.

    I don't understand. What type of stage do you mean?

Categories