Stainless steel frame

jamie4759

Hi all. Seriously contemplating Stainless steel frame for next summer. Looked at Condor Stainless Acciaio, Rourke 953, Mercian 953, Cinelli and a beautiful XCR frame made by Longstaffs in Staffs. Anyone using stainless? I want something for fast club rides, possibly in the future crit races, but also comfortable enough for century rides and long rides in the peaks. Any views welcome. Or, should I just stick to my carbon Condor Leggero?

sungod

i've got a cinelli xcr, the original version, frame is stiff where you need it but still takes out a lot of road buzz, the ride is excellent

the standard fork cinelli supply is the columbus minimal, i found this too flexy for hard cornering so changed to an enve 2.0 which was a huge improvement

viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=12928655&hilit=xcr#p18393346

drlodge

I've got a Rourke 953 (build link in my sig) and use it exactly for the purposes you state. The whole Rourke experience is one to be savoured.

Grill

My Ritchey Road Logic 2.0 is fantastic. Fairly light, stiff, not too expensive and it comes with one of the nicest forks you can buy. Quite aggressive geometry as well.

northpole

A good friend recently got a 953 Rourke and absolutely loves it. Must say, the detailing around the joints looks top notch and he has blended in Royce hubs etc to make for a very classic look on a modern bike.

One thing you may want to consider is the frame geometry - purely from an aesthetic perspective - the head tube looks very tall despite it not being a 'sitty uppy' riding position. Hope that makes some sense!

I get the impression that you really have to want a Rourke as the whole bike build experience took a long time.

Peter

drlodge

The reason for the long head tube is due to the geometry required to get the rider into the correct position.

This is me being fitted on a 54cm CAAD 8 frame, notice the stack of spacers under the stem...consequently my Rourke was based on this geometry but with a longer head tube.



And resulted in this frame, the head tube is quite long also:

oldmuthariley

I used to have a 953 Rourke but sold it on as:

1) the bare frame weighed approx 1.9kg and cost £1500
2) When i went for the fit i had a perfectly good saddle (Fizik antares) and was recommend that i move that on and buy an Arione for fit purposes. The superstiff /harsh 953 ride combined with that saddle cuased me no end of discomfort - so i sold both.
3) I now ride a columbus life frame which was custom made for someone else but fits me fine - it cost £500 and weighs less than the Rourke. I've got a Ti frame on the way (also custom for someone else) which cost £600 and weighs around 1.45kg.
4) Rourke frames tend to be specced to have 1.5cm of spacers under the stem (i'd rather have had a 1.5cm longer head tube)
5) communication is hit and miss - your'e measured, order is taken and unless you work hard to speak to someone then 6 / 7 months later you'll get your frame.

Some customers have had a great experience but others less so.
- think seriously before splashing £1500 and ending up being dissapointed (but that's just my experience so take it with a pinch of salt)

bmxboy10

oldmuthariley wrote:

I used to have a 953 Rourke but sold it on as:

1) the bare frame weighed approx 1.9kg and cost £1500
2) When i went for the fit i had a perfectly good saddle (Fizik antares) and was recommend that i move that on and buy an Arione for fit purposes. The superstiff /harsh 953 ride combined with that saddle cuased me no end of discomfort - so i sold both.
3) I now ride a columbus life frame which was custom made for someone else but fits me fine - it cost £500 and weighs less than the Rourke. I've got a Ti frame on the way (also custom for someone else) which cost £600 and weighs around 1.45kg.
4) Rourke frames tend to be specced to have 1.5cm of spacers under the stem (i'd rather have had a 1.5cm longer head tube)
5) communication is hit and miss - your'e measured, order is taken and unless you work hard to speak to someone then 6 / 7 months later you'll get your frame.

Some customers have had a great experience but others less so.
- think seriously before splashing £1500 and ending up being dissapointed (but that's just my experience so take it with a pinch of salt)

AAAhhhh! just want I didnt want to hear! Been undecided on a Rourke for about a year and thought I had made a decision to proceed. As I said in a previous post this would be my worst nightmare! Thanks for sharing though as we need to hear the pros and cons

drlodge

oldmuthariley wrote:

I used to have a 953 Rourke but sold it on as:

1) the bare frame weighed approx 1.9kg and cost £1500
2) When i went for the fit i had a perfectly good saddle (Fizik antares) and was recommend that i move that on and buy an Arione for fit purposes. The superstiff /harsh 953 ride combined with that saddle cuased me no end of discomfort - so i sold both.
3) I now ride a columbus life frame which was custom made for someone else but fits me fine - it cost £500 and weighs less than the Rourke. I've got a Ti frame on the way (also custom for someone else) which cost £600 and weighs around 1.45kg.
4) Rourke frames tend to be specced to have 1.5cm of spacers under the stem (i'd rather have had a 1.5cm longer head tube)
5) communication is hit and miss - your'e measured, order is taken and unless you work hard to speak to someone then 6 / 7 months later you'll get your frame.

Some customers have had a great experience but others less so.
- think seriously before splashing £1500 and ending up being dissapointed (but that's just my experience so take it with a pinch of salt)

Certainly some truth in this, I'll put my more positive spin on these points:
1. 953 frame isn't the lightest but to me the weight is immaterial. An extra 1kg is a bottle of water.
2. Changing the saddle is easy, but I'm surprised they encouraged you to change a perfectly good saddle.
3. not much to say here, but if you're after a cheaper and lighter frame there are certainly ways to do this. A factory frame will fit me fine but I wanted custom in more ways than one. And custom costs.
4. By default the frame will be setup so it has 1.5cm spacers under the stem and 1cm spacers on top. they do this to allow future adjsutment. I have since lowered my stem over the month so its now slammed with a 5mm spacer on top, and I've cut the steer accordingly. Ideally I would have had a frame 2cm smaller but I didn't have the flexibility at the time to achieve this.
5. Communication can be a bit hit and miss, but if you try you'll find Jason and Gareth more than helpful. Best way to communiacte quickly with Jason is via Twitter and but also had some emails with him.

My frame all in cost about £2,200 and certainly a factory frame would have bene a lot cheaper, but it wouldn't have been unique.

Grill

I almost bought a stock 953 frameset from Rourke, but was messed about on the price so decided to keep my (lighter) Ritchey instead. I was surprised by the weight of the 953 frames as I expected them to be around the 1400-1500g range.

One of my buddies is waiting for his to come and I was there for the process which I thought was quite good. He's clearly passionate about his work and does a good job with it.

drlodge

I too was a bit surprised by the weight...all up with decent wheels and Campag SR groupset its spot on 8kg.

So question back to the OP - what are you looking for in a frame other than stainless?

oldmuthariley

As i said - just my personal take on things - there are many satisfied customers out there.
When i asked "what will the frame weigh" - i was told " we don't give people a weight because if we do and it turns out heavier then they're dissapointed" .....
Weight does matter if your spending that amount of money - otherwise why would one buy super record over chorus?

All i'm saying is - do your homework and grill the framebuilders about what you want and what they can produce - if weight is important to you then tell them, the problem with rourke is that you rarely (unless you're into twitter which is frankly not "communicating") you won't get to speak to the framebuilder but the "salesman"

When i phoned up once to enquire about the type of brake stops to be used on the frame i was told "the one's he always uses" - "why would you want different ones" - and basically got the impression that it was too daft a question to be forwarded on.

My frame also ended up with a font that i had not chosen - due to a "communication" mishap
I was offered a repaint but that's not the point.

If it doesn't feel right don't do it.

I'd personally go for something like a Speedvagen if i had the £££ $$$!

good luck

drlodge

Clearly things didn't work out too well with oldmuthariley..Jason is the man behind @rourkebikes on twitter, I also have his email address and hence speaking directly with the frame builder.

All i'm saying is - do your homework and grill the framebuilders about what you want and what they can produce - if weight is important to you then tell them

This is good advice for any framebuilder - but first you have to work out for yourself what you want in a frame otherwise you can't communicate it. And if a stock frame gives you what you want, why would you pay extra for custom? Get a Ritchey Road Logic 2.0 instead...

bmxboy10

OP check out Enigma they have some stock frames on sale and at least one is SS XCR.

sungod

fwiw my xcr is about 1600g, the closest standard size was 59cm, mine is custom with a slightly shorter top tube, and taller seat tube and head tube

got measured at mosquito, then it took about 6 months, but it's made in milan so a month of this was the august factory shutdown, basically you hear about it when they ship it

mikenetic

drlodge wrote:

The reason for the long head tube is due to the geometry required to get the rider into the correct position.

This is me being fitted on a 54cm CAAD 8 frame, notice the stack of spacers under the stem...consequently my Rourke was based on this geometry but with a longer head tube.



And resulted in this frame, the head tube is quite long also:

So that was your bike on the Tour of the Hills Audax on Sunday then? Mine was lurking in the background, discretely.

LegendLust

If the weight of a frame is the most important point - why are you looking at steel?

drlodge

mikenetic wrote:

So that was your bike on the Tour of the Hills Audax on Sunday then? Mine was lurking in the background, discretely.

Yep

bobmcstuff

drlodge wrote:

I too was a bit surprised by the weight...all up with decent wheels and Campag SR groupset its spot on 8kg.

So question back to the OP - what are you looking for in a frame other than stainless?

8kg isn't very heavy! If I was really worried about the whole 1kg or so I could lose if I went to a light CF bike I'd just eat a few less pies... Nice bike btw.

Basically:

LegendLust wrote:

If the weight of a frame is the most important point - why are you looking at steel?

oldmuthariley

LegendLust wrote:

If the weight of a frame is the most important point - why are you looking at steel?

The OP never mentioned weight .
I didn't say it was "the most important point" but something to consider.

LegendLust

oldmuthariley wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

If the weight of a frame is the most important point - why are you looking at steel?

The OP never mentioned weight .
I didn't say it was "the most important point" but something to consider.

I know the OP didn't but quite a few people have mentioned steel frames and weight.

Grill

Weight is important regardless of the material. If I have the choice between a carbon frame that's 1100g and another that's 800g, then I'm going to go for the lighter one. 953 exists because people wanted an option that was lighter than 853, so why pay the extra if the weight saved isn't an important factor?

on-yer-bike

How can a Rourke 953 be a different weight to another frame of the same size and tubes? Do they put weights in the bottom bracket? I imagine a lugged frame would be heavier than a TIG frame due to the weight of the lugs. A friend was riding a 953 Condor on Sunday and that's more expensive than a Rourke. My Pegoretti weighs 1700 grams but its not stainless. In response to Grill, I had a choice between a 1200 gram carbon Colnago and an 800ish gram Canyon. I chose the Colnago. I had an 800ish gram Cervelo and I'd much rather ride the Colnago.

Grill

It's not important to you. We're not talking about you.

kingstonian

I'm confused - posted earlier but can't see my post in the thread......

There's plenty of people that can make a frame from 953, or XCR - not just Rourke. I'd suggest the OP gets in touch with a few frame builders to see what they would recommend.

I almost went with either 953 or XCR, but in the end my frame builder (Tom Donhou) suggested 853 in the front triangle and XCR for the rear. I won't lie, one consideration was cost as 953 was a significant bump in price and my bike was already costing a pretty penny .......

The XCR on my bike is polished, it looks amazing. I know some have it painted but personally I can't see the point of stainless steel if you don't show it off and let it glint in the sunlight.

LegendLust

Grill wrote:

Weight is important regardless of the material. If I have the choice between a carbon frame that's 1100g and another that's 800g, then I'm going to go for the lighter one. 953 exists because people wanted an option that was lighter than 853, so why pay the extra if the weight saved isn't an important factor?

I would suspect that a lot of people are choosing 953 for reasons other than the weight.

My point was that if weight was critical, then you shouldn't be looking at a steel frame.

LegendLust

Kingstonian wrote:

I'm confused - posted earlier but can't see my post in the thread......

There's plenty of people that can make a frame from 953, or XCR - not just Rourke. I'd suggest the OP gets in touch with a few frame builders to see what they would recommend.

I almost went with either 953 or XCR, but in the end my frame builder (Tom Donhou) suggested 853 in the front triangle and XCR for the rear. I won't lie, one consideration was cost as 953 was a significant bump in price and my bike was already costing a pretty penny .......

The XCR on my bike is polished, it looks amazing. I know some have it painted but personally I can't see the point of stainless steel if you don't show it off and let it glint in the sunlight.

Exactly. The polished Tommasini X Fire for instance! Gorgeous

https://yy1.staticflickr.com/2857/97173 ... af93_z.jpg

bontie

Or a Pellizolli Aeta for around the same as Rourke.

http://www.pelizzoliworld.com/products/aeta-2/

oldmuthariley

Just received my second hand custom (for someone else) titanium serotta frame:
just my size and only 1.38kg for the frame
and 1/3rd price of the 953 frame. 8)

ugo.santalucia

Unless you have a problem with rust (damp shed combined with poor maintenance), stainless adds un-necessary costs and gives you virtually no benefit.
Those who believe in the magic properties of the most expensive and trendy materials (being stainless or titanium or scandium rich alloys) have to come to terms with engineering, that will tell you there is no significant difference, not one your body can perceive, which is instead down to frame geometry and tubes size.
I have 853, which is the same as 725, which is the same as 531, which si the same as Columbus Nemo, which is the same as Columbus SL. Having owned one of each, I've never noticed one steel being different.

Moral: save you money and get an 853 frame instead

oldmuthariley

Moral: save you money and get an 853 frame instead

+1