Steel frame

Oxon Tim

Been looking around at various bikes for the last few weeks and today a lbs has said they have a 2011 Orange Pure7,went to the orange site and was suprised to see its Steel Frame.
First time ive noticed a steel frame bike.

whats the pro and cons to steel over Aluminium

IBISMojoHDamon

Steel - Cons - (typically) Heavier, will Rust (sometimes from the inside out, so you may never know), will attract retro geeks in CTC lycra, will attract 29'er riders asking why you didn't buy a 29'er steel. No rear suspension :0( If you don't have a replacement mech hanger, you could bend / snap the mech hanger off

Steel - Pro's - Will be a comfier ride, will look retro, easier to weld, fix, repair, can't think of any others...

Aluminum - Cons - Will have fatter tubes, but thinner tube walls, thus denting easier, will have a limited fatigue life, (In my experience, it cracks around welds) Seems to go brittle / dead lifeless over it's lifetime) harsher ride than steel. Alloy seems a softer metal, so scratches easier than steel.

Aluminum - Pro's - (typically) lighter, stiffer, cheaper (more mass produced) more choice,

Oxon Tim

Cheers as i said got a Pure7 to ride tomorrow and a 2012 Kona Fire Mountain

Northwind

P7 is a nice bike but the frame's a bit of an anvil...

The stereotype is that steel is a bit more flexy/springy whereas aluminium is stiff. Now flex doesn't just add comfort, in fact IMO it doesn't add much comfort at all but it does add traction and control- the rear wheel can track the ground better rather than being knocked around. really helps for fast rocky descents.

The trouble with the stereotype is that it's often bobbins. I had an On One Scandal- aluminium frame- which was flexier and nicer to ride than my mate's On One Inbred- the steel version of that bike, with the exact same geometry etc. The steel bike was stiffer and harsher despite what teh internetz thinks.

rudedog

Northwind wrote:

P7 is a nice bike but the frame's a bit of an anvil...

The stereotype is that steel is a bit more flexy/springy whereas aluminium is stiff. Now flex doesn't just add comfort, in fact IMO it doesn't add much comfort at all but it does add traction and control- the rear wheel can track the ground better rather than being knocked around. really helps for fast rocky descents.

The trouble with the stereotype is that it's often bobbins. I had an On One Scandal- aluminium frame- which was flexier and nicer to ride than my mate's On One Inbred- the steel version of that bike, with the exact same geometry etc. The steel bike was stiffer and harsher despite what teh internetz thinks.

How much more do you think a steel frame is flexing over an aluminium? I just can't see the differences being so much so that they could actually be felt in such a pronounced manner. I would think that tyre volume/pressure coupled with the actual length of the chain stays would have far greater influence.

Northwind

If you compare extremes- like, say, a Cotic Soul with a Santa Cruz Chameleon- the difference is massive. I went from my Soul, with a 2.1 rear tyre, to an Mmmbop with the exact same build kit, and the difference was massive. Less than a quarter of an inch difference in chainstay too. The Bop's back wheel had a mind of its own, riding lumpy trails I know well like Glentress's black felt totally different. I ended up fitting a 2.3 tyre to damp it out and that made it tolerable but still very obviously stiffer and constantly on the bounce.

But like I say, the cliche doesn't always work, like the aluminium (scandium alloy) Scandal being "softer" than the steel Inbred.

rudedog

I'm not convinced - I went from a Handjob to an Mmmbop and didn't notice any real difference out of the saddle. Seated was definitely harsher on the Mmmbop but I'd put that down to its much larger seat tube diameter.

It may be that I'm riding smoother trails than you and am at a lower level of riding ability (going slower on the rough) and so just haven't noticed the differences. Using big high volume MTB tyres, I just can't get my head around the amount of flex you'd need through the rear triangle to make such a noticeable difference in ride characteristics.

Northwind

Could be it's a lack of finesse on my part tbh, I'm not that good! Maybe another rider would be able to soak it up better. Once it had the 2.3 in it, I liked it a lot more but still never did get to like that rear end, so sold it in the end purely for that reason.

It doesn't really need to be a lot... If you think about, frinstance, the difference between 30 and 50 psi in a tyre, the ride's totally different but the actual amount of give in the tyre isn't so massively different.

andy_welch

Northwind wrote:

It doesn't really need to be a lot... If you think about, frinstance, the difference between 30 and 50 psi in a tyre, the ride's totally different but the actual amount of give in the tyre isn't so massively different.

Do you have any numbers for this? I would have thought that the exta tyre flex going from 50 to 30 psi would be greater than even the most flexible frame, but that's just a guess.

It's an interesting discussion for me as I'm currently looking at options to replace a 20 year old fully rigid steel bike. I'm looking at full suss (eg Giant Trance/Anthem) and steel hard tails (Cotic Soul or Solaris). However, my take on the original question is pretty simple. A decent bike maker can make a decent bike out of either. You can get a steel frame that's stiffer than an Aluminium one or lighter than a different Aluminium one. What is true is that steel tends to bend rather than crack when it fails (can be bent back into shape in some cases and is easier to weld if it does break), but pretty much everything else about how a frame performs is more affected by how it's designed than what it's built from.

Cheers

Andy

supersonic

Steel is not comfier than aluminium, is a myth. It can be - it depends on how the frame is constructed, but an alu frame can be made compliant if needs be.

rockmonkeysc

I much prefer steel frames. I have never ridden an aluminium frame that was half as good as a P7 steel frame.
There are even some steel full sus frames.
If I had the cash I would be very tempted by the K9 downhill frame, steel front end and aluminium back end. Even serial frame killers don't seem to be able to break these things & they are surprisingly light for a 200mm travel DH frame.

supersonic

I have never ridden an aluminium frame that was half as good as a P7 steel frame.

I have ridden many that are a lot better ;-).

Each to their own.

Northwind

andy_welch wrote:

Do you have any numbers for this? I would have thought that the exta tyre flex going from 50 to 30 psi would be greater than even the most flexible frame, but that's just a guess.

Numbers? No, just observation. The tyre thing you can easily try yourself, that much of a PSI difference doesn't massively change the amount of deformation but it makes a huge difference to the ride. I think you've got an impression that I'm talking about huge amounts of movement, almost like suspension travel but it's really not like that- it's just that a small amount of movement can have a big impact.

It's not scientific at all but if you lean a hardtail over to one side and weight up the BB shell, watch what happens... With some, there's a surprising amount of flex, my Scandal bent like a plastic ruler

al2098

I think the big steel vs. alu debate should be more about road bikes when it comes to comfort or flex. Correct me if I'm wrong but a bit of tyre pressure can make a big difference to comfort as much so as the difference between steel and alu on an MTB but this has been covered a bit.
Simply alu is lighter and doesn't rust. As far as repairing goes, if your steel frame gets damaged, the best thing for it is the local skip. How many of you out there actually repair a steel frame? Once the bend has happened, the metal is weakened.
Steel is history

supersonic

Correct me if I'm wrong but a bit of tyre pressure can make a big difference to comfort as much

Very much agree - infact more so. The whole 'steel is comfortable' thing is a hangover from road bikes, and the mid 90s when manufacturers were turning out very thin walled, sub 4lbs steel framed MTBs. Alu has moved on, steel frames have got heavier in general.

Steel is history

Pretty much agree too. Maybe for budget hard nut frames, and if we see some of the 'super steel' frames that are stainless and very tough (resulting in lighter frames than average), but carbon is taking over. The only time I'd use steel if it was a bargain, or if I was out touring in the back end of nowhere.

Northwind

Aye, assuming that the On Ones aren't going to turn out to just be an abberation rather than the start of something good anyway... Some steel bikes do bring characteristics that alu struggles to match but my C456 feels an awful lot like my old Soul did, takes a bigger fork, and weighs 2/3ds as much while costing 2/3ds as much. (the handling isn't as good IMO but that's just a matter of taste).

If it happens, I reckon it'll be the end of expensive steel for anyone who doesn't have a beard and sandals. (Cheap steel probably will keep on going, with people still bleating "Steel is real" while riding their scaffold-pipe On Ones and Oranges )

(nb- I say Orange, because the P7 is a cheap frame. It just has an expensive logo)

supersonic

WIth prices dropping so low fro some carbon (and mainstream stuff will also drop), it's win win - lighter frames, strong (this is now proven), for less money, and can be pretty easily repaired (if you do break it!) with no loss of integrity of the structure.

The Northern Monkey

if you want a steel frame, then this is a steal geddit?

http://www.merlincycles.co.uk/Bike+Shop ... me_697.htm

supersonic

Saying that I have just bought a Tig Team 853 lol!

Slow Loris

I think the generalisation that steel is more 'comfy' than aluminium is something that has been confirmed by my experiences at least. Every steel bike I have ridden has had a quality to the ride that just didn't exist on the aluminium bikes. It's hard to explain, but might be analogous to eating a nice dinner with a decent set of weighty cutlery as opposed to some service station toolage. Doesn't make the dinner taste any better but the experience of eating is somehow more pleasant..

Recently I had to swap out my aluminium Genesis Core 40 frame due to some damage, and because I wanted to move all the components over to a new frame with the minimum of fuss/expense I went for another Genesis frame, and I was able to get hold of a steel Latitude frame at a bargain price. The difference in geometry is next to nothing, but difference in ride quality is noticeable, if not enormous.

And I don't hold with the whole ''reduce psi to gain a more comfortable ride" thing, it might be a softer ride but it can be a hard slog running with too soft tires. If you can get a comfortable ride with a steel frame and tyres at the correct pressure for the terrain and style of riding, then for me that's nirvana. Or get a full sus.

al2098

Go to Mcdonalds with some gold plated forks and it's still going to taste like crap. Its not going to taste any better.
This is all psychological mate. You think because its a steel frame it should be comfy and somehow better but in reality its like a curry that very hot but has no flavour,,.. oops, another silly analogy..

Northwind

So are you saying you think that the material is irrelevant to ride feel? Really?

I hope we'd all agree that the stereotype doesn't always hold water but that's a long way from "They're all the same"

rockmonkeysc

Pretty much agree too. Maybe for budget hard nut frames, and if we see some of the 'super steel' frames that are stainless and very tough (resulting in lighter frames than average),

Stainless is heavier than mild steel & more brittle. Also welds in stainless steel are quite a lot weaker than mild steel. Stainless also distorts badly and becomes even more brittle when welded & doesn't respond particularly well to heat treatment compared to a good medium carbon content steel. So your going to end up with a lot more cracked frames.
The only use for stainless is where you want abrasion resistance or corrosion resistance or you want something pretty.

al2098

So are you saying you think all frames ride the same and that the material is irrelevant to ride feel? Really?

Much more about the ride quality on a mountainbike frame has to do with geometry and the construction of the frame than the material.
On a road bike you have generally very stiff frames with tiny tyres pumped up to 110psi so it is easier to distinguish between frame materials than with \mtb's which have big fat tyres pumped to 40psi. A poorly constructed frame will be a dog to ride whatever the materials used. So to answer that question.. No initially, and then yes. Really.

supersonic

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Pretty much agree too. Maybe for budget hard nut frames, and if we see some of the 'super steel' frames that are stainless and very tough (resulting in lighter frames than average),

Stainless is heavier than mild steel & more brittle. Also welds in stainless steel are quite a lot weaker than mild steel. Stainless also distorts badly and becomes even more brittle when welded & doesn't respond particularly well to heat treatment compared to a good medium carbon content steel. So your going to end up with a lot more cracked frames.
The only use for stainless is where you want abrasion resistance or corrosion resistance or you want something pretty.

Look up maraging steel and Reynolds 953. This is why I said 'super steels'. You are right(ish) for general grades of stainless. But off the ball for others.

Northwind

al2098 wrote:

Much more about the ride quality on a mountainbike frame has to do with geometry and the construction of the frame than the material.

So it's not "all psychological" then?