So, about steel frames?

Kieran_Burns

Why should I, why shouldn't I?

Someone mentioned a Croix de Fer today, and I liked the look but I don't know enough about steel frames to comment.

rolf_f

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Why should I, why shouldn't I?

Because, when all is said and done, real bikes are made of steel. 8)

supersonic

Test ride one if you can. The frames are not particularly light, and do flex a bit. That maybe the 'feel' you are after though.

JamesB5446

More comfy, more heavy, less stiff.

If you're planning on racing don't bother, if you're not, try one.

clarkey cat

If you're going to get a steel frame, do it properly and get a nice classic British made audax bike, not a re-badged Ridgeback.




*hides*

UndercoverElephant

Genesis make great frames. The current CdF is made out of a high-grade 725 steel, so whilst it will be heavier than an aluminium frame, there'll only be a few hundred grammes in it. The difference in the feel of the frame is amazing.

When I compare my Equilibrium to my BeOne, the Equilibrium is like riding on a magic carpet. Don't get me wrong, I love the all-out speed of the lighter BeOne, but for soaking up the road, the Equilibrium can't be beat.

Personally, I'd be looking at building one up from the frame, maybe matching it with a carbon disc-compatible weight in order to shed some pounds. Swap the majority of the components from the Tricross (or get some new ones), add some BB7s and you'd have a superb all-year commuter.

But if you're not completely sold on discs, the Equilibrium can't be beat.

Kieran_Burns

I'm moving on from the Tricross as it's 3 years old now and has gone through 3 winters with only a new BB and chain needed (I kept it very clean over the months)

Basically, it's worn out and I'm casting around for a new bike that I can use the same way as I have the Tricross

I want discs, mounts for 'guards and a rack if poss. I'm not sold on the 46/36 chainwheel idea and would prefer a compact, but above all I want something that can soak up the miles and light trail without missing a beat

First.Aspect

I wouldn't over state the stiffness thing if you are going for a cross bike (although this depends on your awesomeness). Weight is the biggie. Decent parts on a steel frame makes for a very nice bike. Heavy parts bleed the life out of a steel bike.

This means that the weight of all the other bits becomes more important. I nearly went for a cdf a while ago and I decided against it because, in order to get to the magic £1000 mark, the rest of the bits would be a bit crap - particularly the wheels and fork (steel for with steel steerer -> forget bunny hopping a pothole).

I ended up getting a steel Salsa which was about 50% more expensive at the time - basically the same idea but all the parts were a bit better and the frame was a better steel. It was fine, but felt a bit podgy even with 25c's and lighter stem, bars, seat and seatpost fitted. Rolling roads were fine but I did really notice the lack of "snap" on the steep stuff (and not because it was flexy).

The new ti frame with £300 wheels, by contrast, feels like a road bike. But then I have had to sell a lung to a chap with a Russian accent in order to pay for it.

---

Just looked at the CdF on the Genesis website. "Weight n/a". This means its heavy. I would bet mtb heavy. I'd warrant that the frame, or even the frame and fork, would make a great base, but that the overall package is like a wet towel.

Its a pity Genesis don't let you mix and match - the CdF frame, the Vapour fork, blah.

First.Aspect

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Personally, I'd be looking at building one up from the frame, maybe matching it with a carbon disc-compatible weight in order to shed some pounds. Swap the majority of the components from the Tricross (or get some new ones), add some BB7s and you'd have a superb all-year commuter.

But if you're not completely sold on discs, the Equilibrium can't be beat.

I'd agree - basically what I've just done. But if you are into building up a bike, why get rid of the Tricross? Why not just put some new parts on it?

Kieran_Burns

First Aspect wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Personally, I'd be looking at building one up from the frame, maybe matching it with a carbon disc-compatible weight in order to shed some pounds. Swap the majority of the components from the Tricross (or get some new ones), add some BB7s and you'd have a superb all-year commuter.

But if you're not completely sold on discs, the Equilibrium can't be beat.

I'd agree - basically what I've just done. But if you are into building up a bike, why get rid of the Tricross? Why not just put some new parts on it?

The frame is scratched and dented as well. I have thought about it, but N+1 is calling.....

I was considering a complete Ultegra groupset but as the money kept climbing, I started looking at a new bike and considered using the Tricross as the 'emergency-fark-everything-is-in-bits' bike.

DrLex

Kaffenback swap out? Great versatility & £140 seems a v. tempting price.

UndercoverElephant

Realcycles have the frame in for £219, choose your fork and you're away.

Doooooooo iiiiiiiiitttttt!

Aidy

My personal experience of the CdF was that the weight penalty outweighed any comfort factor from being steel.

I do wonder if that's going to be the case with all modern steel frames.

Have since bought a Tripster, which I'm happier with, but still doesn't quite tick all the boxes. I'm hoping that with discs gaining popularity something will soon, else I might end up going the custom built route...

godders1

For commuting I don't really see the benefit of steel (I own a steel framed bike as well as alu).

I don't think the comfort benefits really come into play unless you're spending all day in the saddle. And of course frame design and fit have a much bigger effect on comfort than frame material anyway. My steel bike doesn't feel any more comfortable than my alu bike tbh.

supersonic

Steel frames are generally getting stiffer and heavier due to the CEN regs. The 2009 CdF frame was 5lbs on the nose for a medium, very likely the new one is heavier than this.

If people are looking a certain frame feel then trying first is a must. A lot of the time a long, light seatpost, saddle, tyres and wheels can have more of an effect on comfort anyway.

The only time I'd pick steel for a frame would be if I was out touring in the middle of nowhere. If it did break, you are never far from someone with a welding torch.

meanredspider

Get a carbon frame and stick a carbon disc fork on it.

supersonic

meanredspider wrote:

Get a carbon frame and stick a carbon disc fork on it.

That's what I'd do. Carbon is getting much cheaper now, has vibration absorption properties in excess of any metal, and can be stiff under pedaling yet still comfortable.

meanredspider

supersonic wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Get a carbon frame and stick a carbon disc fork on it.

That's what I'd do. Carbon is getting much cheaper now, has vibration absorption properties in excess of any metal, and can be stiff under pedaling yet still comfortable.

Yup. Much easier to put the stiffness where you want it and build in the flex too

UndercoverElephant

supersonic wrote:

Steel frames are generally getting stiffer and heavier due to the CEN regs. The 2009 CdF frame was 5lbs on the nose for a medium, very likely the new one is heavier than this.

If people are looking a certain frame feel then trying first is a must. A lot of the time a long, light seatpost, saddle, tyres and wheels can have more of an effect on comfort anyway.

The only time I'd pick steel for a frame would be if I was out touring in the middle of nowhere. If it did break, you are never far from someone with a welding torch.

The 2009 CdF was Reynolds 520, rather than the 725 currently used. My Equilibrium frame was about 3.5 lbs, also 725 - I don't know how much extra reinforcement they'd have to put in for off-road use, but adding 50% would seem extreme. I guess you will pay a weight penalty for the ruggedisation.

Not sure if it's just the frame on the Equilibrium that makes the difference, the tyres are the same, the seatpost is comparable - the wheels are heavier home-made handbuilts (which I think are probably stiffer than the lightweight ones on the BeOne), but honestly, the lack of road buzz in the Equilibrium is amazing. It floats.

supersonic

725 is no stiffer or lighter than 520 though, but the tensile strength is a little higher which may, if used right, allow thinner wall sections. But the CEN regs are pretty tough I have seen some frames gain 3/4lb.

Aidy

meanredspider wrote:

Get a carbon frame and stick a carbon disc fork on it.

Tends not to really be an option if you want to run a rear rack.

BelgianBeerGeek

supersonic wrote:

Steel frames are generally getting stiffer and heavier due to the CEN regs. The 2009 CdF frame was 5lbs on the nose for a medium, very likely the new one is heavier than this.

If people are looking a certain frame feel then trying first is a must. A lot of the time a long, light seatpost, saddle, tyres and wheels can have more of an effect on comfort anyway.

The only time I'd pick steel for a frame would be if I was out touring in the middle of nowhere. If it did break, you are never far from someone with a welding torch.

What are these CEN regs? How does this influence things?

supersonic

They can be viewed online but I can't find the link at the minute. Some info here:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic ... l-hardtail

They do vary on the bikes usage ie a MTb frame takes into account the length of fork. But overall the frames have to be tougher in a number of areas. The tests are more stringent than the old EN regs. However I don't think all countries have to comply. In a nutshell many frames have had the head tube and BB areas toughened up, and thicker gauge tubing which has added weight. The impact on alu, to and carbon has been much less as oversizing the less dense material adds little weight.

meanredspider

Aidy wrote:

Tends not to really be an option if you want to run a rear rack.

I was just going by this

rack if poss

- didn't sound like an essential and there are seatpost racks.

First.Aspect

I suspect that the CEN thing is nonsense. Reading further down the thread which was posted and you start to see why.

A quick google search also suggests to me that the issue lies with mtbs specifically. If I recall, there was a bit of trouble a few years ago with very low end bicycle shaped objects which appeared to be mountain bikes and I suspect that this standard aims to stop bicycles looking like they are for offroad use, but aren't, being sold.

Can you give some examples of frames which are massively heavier than they used to be?

supersonic

Mostly MTBs like the Orange P7, Pipe Dream range, OnOne - plus some have just stopped making them completely like Rock Lobster. They apply to road/cx bikes, but differently:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... akbyzyMF-A

These are more stringent than the older tests. A mentioned in that thread, careful design can increase the strength and durability for little weight penalty, but is costly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the new CdF is half a pound heavier, but until we know the exact weights I can't be sure. Something to be aware of though.

fossyant

Get some Columbus SLX tubing. :twisted:

Gussio

fossyant wrote:

Get some Columbus SLX tubing. :twisted:

With internal spiral ribbing for her pleasure....

First.Aspect

supersonic wrote:

Mostly MTBs like the Orange P7, Pipe Dream range, OnOne - plus some have just stopped making them completely like Rock Lobster. They apply to road/cx bikes, but differently:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... akbyzyMF-A

These are more stringent than the older tests. A mentioned in that thread, careful design can increase the strength and durability for little weight penalty, but is costly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the new CdF is half a pound heavier, but until we know the exact weights I can't be sure. Something to be aware of though.

Look you might be right, but you have absolutely no basis for it.

My recollection from about 3 years ago is that the Salsa I bought was lighter than the CdF. The Salsa was a 4.5lb frame and 2lb fork, so no lightweight. Also wasn't particularly flexy. I doubt that flexibility would be a particular problem with a well made frame at the 5lb range and, geek that I am, I've not read anything about it. At all. This suggests to me that its made minimal impact on the steel frame world.

walkingbootweather

I like steel frames. It could be because steel frames somehow give a better 'feel' than aluminium. It is probably true that a complete bike made from steel has more advantages and fewer drawbacks than a complete bike made of another material, but mixing and matching materials can yield excellent results too (although I wouldn't thank you for an aluminium fork). It could be that because steel is easier to work on, it is easier to build elegant bikes with all the necessary braze-ons. It is probably because I'm old-fashioned.

supersonic

First Aspect wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Mostly MTBs like the Orange P7, Pipe Dream range, OnOne - plus some have just stopped making them completely like Rock Lobster. They apply to road/cx bikes, but differently:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... akbyzyMF-A

These are more stringent than the older tests. A mentioned in that thread, careful design can increase the strength and durability for little weight penalty, but is costly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the new CdF is half a pound heavier, but until we know the exact weights I can't be sure. Something to be aware of though.

Look you might be right, but you have absolutely no basis for it.

My recollection from about 3 years ago is that the Salsa I bought was lighter than the CdF. The Salsa was a 4.5lb frame and 2lb fork, so no lightweight. Also wasn't particularly flexy. I doubt that flexibility would be a particular problem with a well made frame at the 5lb range and, geek that I am, I've not read anything about it. At all. This suggests to me that its made minimal impact on the steel frame world.

As I clearly stated, "it it is very likely" and "the tests are harder". I have nowhere said that all new frames are heavier, but from quite a bit of reading and chatting with frame builders (and testing), there has been a trend of heavier frames with the more stringent tests. There is a bit of speculation here on my part and, I'll say again, it will not surprise me if you found that steel frames across the disciplines have got on average heavier. The only way to prove this would be to weight them (of course). Also, as previously mentioned, designers are finding new ways to add strength for little impact on weight.

In addition, this only applies to frames sold in the EU. If you are importing or buying outside, then the regulation does not have to be met.