steel vs carbon: comfort

chrisjohnsen

I am at the planning stage of a bespoke steel project. I want an all-day-out racer were comfort is the main focus over speed and acceleration. I have never ridden a steel bike before and was hoping that some one would like to shear their experience of the ride qualities of steel. At the momen I am riding a Focus Izalco Pro which I am planning to keep for more purley traing purposes like intervals and threshold traing. What will be the main differences between these materials.

The frames I a looking at are Passoni, Feather and Independent Fabrications.

Thanks in advance for any input or thoughts!

slowmart

Out of all my bikes my Indy Fab is a keeper. I've had one replacement frame under warranty which was handled without any issues.

I can't help with the steel feel but ti has a lovely lively feel to it plus the longevity aspect with any damage being visible but I'm also impressed with my Roubaix with a comfortable all day ride and geometry but the feel is dead when compared to Ti.

My next road frame,mmm its in the back of mind pro's and con's but steel is a consideration as there are some great UK frame builders out there and while carbon is effective and comfortable there's not much of an emotional attachment.

e999sam

Have a look at what Mike Burrows has to say about frame material.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjYNIaI26EQ

imposter2.0

As above - comfort is not a product of material, it is more a product of fit, component selection and tyre choice.

desweller

Material choice does have the potential to affect the characteristics of a bike. What Mike does not mention is that aluminium has an infinite fatigue limit; so, if you bend it enough times, it doesn't matter what the stress is, it will break. Steel has a finite fatigue limit; if you keep the stress below a certain value, you can bend it as many times as you like and it will not break.

So at the limit of frame performance aluminium frames have to be designed with this poor fatigue performance in mind, which is why they are stiffer by necessity. With steel you can accomodate more stress without risking failure by fatigue, so you may be able to emloy a higher strain limit in your frame design.

Of course, this ignores the fact that you can probably count the number of artisan bike frame builders who do ballpark stress/strain calculations on the fingers of your right foot.

darkhairedlord

DesWeller wrote:

Material choice does have the potential to affect the characteristics of a bike. What Mike does not mention is that aluminium has an infinite fatigue limit; so, if you bend it enough times, it doesn't matter what the stress is, it will break. Steel has a finite fatigue limit; if you keep the stress below a certain value, you can bend it as many times as you like and it will not break.

So at the limit of frame performance aluminium frames have to be designed with this poor fatigue performance in mind, which is why they are stiffer by necessity. With steel you can accomodate more stress without risking failure by fatigue, so you may be able to emloy a higher strain limit in your frame design.

Of course, this ignores the fact that you can probably count the number of artisan bike frame builders who do ballpark stress/strain calculations on the fingers of your right foot.

you have your infinite and finite the wrong way around.

desweller

darkhairedlord wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Material choice does have the potential to affect the characteristics of a bike. What Mike does not mention is that aluminium has an infinite fatigue limit; so, if you bend it enough times, it doesn't matter what the stress is, it will break. Steel has a finite fatigue limit; if you keep the stress below a certain value, you can bend it as many times as you like and it will not break.

So at the limit of frame performance aluminium frames have to be designed with this poor fatigue performance in mind, which is why they are stiffer by necessity. With steel you can accomodate more stress without risking failure by fatigue, so you may be able to emloy a higher strain limit in your frame design.

Of course, this ignores the fact that you can probably count the number of artisan bike frame builders who do ballpark stress/strain calculations on the fingers of your right foot.

you have your infinite and finite the wrong way around.

The way I was taught, a fatigue limit is finite when it stops at a certain stress value irrespective of number of cycles, and infinite if it extends to zero stress for large but measurable numbers of cycles.

I agree the terminology is ambiguous/open to interpretation/probably defined differently by different schools.

Chat noir

Highly subjective. Lot of people swear by steel bikes, look at Retro Bike or CTC forums for the real enthusiasts. Steel undergoing revival, and style and quality of makers like Ricky Feather or Mercian can’t be overstated. But, is there any difference in comfort?

I have too many old steel bikes, including a Mercian 531, a 531 Pro, a 653, a 753 and 731 OS, as well as a Dolan Dedacciai, but not 853 or 953. Think that 753 weight (1747 g frame, 669 g forks) not markedly beaten by later steel frames. For everyday use I prefer the 753, whether into town or 100 miles, even though it is a little 'firm'. The softest, I find, is 531 Pro – not much, but feels most comfortable – but don’t use very often. 653 forks slightly less harsh than 753, but marginal. For long ride (eg ETE), I go to Bob Jackson 731 OS. For me, overall, best feel of all the frames, and happy to do long, multi-day rides. For touring, use the Dolan: heavy (2336 g and 945 g) but fine with rack and panniers and its stability descending big hills when laden is awesome – happy going up and down things like Ventoux and Alpe d’Huez on the Dolan last summer. All frames are 58 cm, so size and set up as close as I can get them.

Best advice: get custom made frame that fits you and your style of riding. The right bike fit will provide the best comfort. If I had the means would go for a stainless steel frame.

I also have a Focus Izalco Pro. Markedly lighter than any steel bike. First outing discovered that carbon more comfortable than any of my other bikes. I cycle out of York and many of the surrounding road surfaces are poor: carbon deals with harsh surfaces better than any of the steel bikes (not even close).

I’m sure others will not agree – as I say, highly subjective. Don’t get me wrong, steel is great to ride, less harsh than aluminium, but don’t expect a magic carpet ride, and comfort isn't the only quality when deciding upon a bike or frame materials. I haven’t traded any of my steel bikes since getting the Focus and I don’t use it that often. I prefer to ride steel because I like the old bikes, I like steel, the look and feel of them, I like the ride, there is a certain ‘spring’ as you cycle along, but it’s a subjective thing. There is also the afore-mentioned 'emotional attachment', the peculiar thing that you can't quantify or escape - I certainly can't (my oldest steel bike, Reynolds 531, hangs in the shed, bought in 1979) and my favourite bike isn't the most comfortable.

Last week coming down a steep hill near Thixendale in the Wolds – terrible surface, loose gravel, holes and cracks everywhere, and I just grinned all the way down and up the other side on the 753 as it absorbed all that the roads threw at it but, then, I’m just old and old-fashioned.

If you do go for steel, enjoy it.

de_sisti

Imposter wrote:

Comfort is not a product of material, it is more a product of fit, component selection and tyre choice.

What he said.

JayKosta

chrisjohnsen wrote:

...
I want an all-day-out racer were comfort is the main focus over speed and acceleration. I have never ridden a steel bike before and was hoping that some one would like to shear their experience of the ride qualities of steel.
...

---

My current bike is a 1972 Fuji 'Newest' (yeah, the bike and I are both old, but we still have our 'moving parts'). I think it is similar to what you say you want.

The wheelbase is noticeably longer (100+ cm) than most current 'race bikes', and I have it setup with only a small drop from the seat to the top of the bars. The amount of 'trail' with the steel fork also probably makes the steering less twitchy than current race bikes.
I did a longish test ride a few years ago on a Specialized S-Works Tarmac, and aside from the weight difference, I really didn't notice a big 'ride enjoyment' improvement with the Tarmac (the Tarmac was completely fine BTW).

Is there some 'ride quality' change that you desire? Is the steering and handling on your Focus OK? If the ride is too rough, then perhaps wider tires would help. Getting a saddle that really works for you can give a huge improvement.

If you do get a steel frame, I suggest getting geometry similar to a 70's era 'stage race bike' or even a 'tourer', rather than a tight wheelbase 'crit bike'.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

FatTed

This article on the (No) difference between steel bikes is interesting.
http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html
what Imposter says, having said that I rather like my steel bike.

woolwich

To the OP, just curious what you expect steel to do for you comfort wise? Do not discount the latest Carbon offerings. Technology has bounded on and all sorts if innovations have taken place, Specialised has polymer inserts in the stays, others have a monoque frame design and sort of suspend the seattube/post in a bush. I have heard great things from lots of people with real world experience that this stuff works. Must be worth a trip to a shop to try.

Fatted, very cool article thanks for sharing. Be careful not to get black and white about the effect of material though. I totally agree that the effect on comfort is somewhere down the scale after tube size, geometry, design and even tyre pressure but it is still there.
I have long given up worrying about stiffness and Modulus of elasticity, lets let Reynolds worry about that before releasing stuff onto the market. I cannot flex a JIS square taper BB more than a BB90, or 953 stay compared to a Nivacrom.
Yet as the article states, I agree that the element of vibratation transmission varies between material, even Richard Sachs says that the material choice is least consequential, not is not consequential.
I have tried building two identical in geometry ( one Zona and one Life) as far I could manage frames and found the difference noticeable. I did this only for my interest and have only my arse for measuring equipment. I am in good company though, from Merckz who had a specific front triangle designed in non heat treated steel to give a more comfortable time in the Classics, to Dave Yates whose Audax bikes have probably covered many hundreds of thousands of miles and will usually specify 631 or equivalent for comfort reasons.
So I guess I am wondering if anyone can put some science behind the collective seat of the pants experience? Is there some sort of difference of shock transmission that is relevant. Or are we all talking b011ocks?

thegreatdivide

I've got two steel bikes from both ends of the scale (a Colnago Master and a Genesis Equilibrium) and three carbon bikes. Tyre widths range from 22mm to 28mm on various kinds of rims. They're all set up off the back of a bike fit, all bar one have the same saddle and subsequently don't cause me any comfort issues. However the steel bikes don't have the same handling as the carbon bikes and can feel a bit 'sluggish' - not in a way that's going to spoil a ride though - I love riding them all.

nweststeyn

I have a steel bike. It's good but that's because it's good, not because it's steel.

Make of that what you will.

dirtyginge

I have a a woodrup 853, a woodrup 731OS, ive had a planet x rt-58 , I have a specialised tarmac ultegra and a lynskey peloton TI...

the 853 is nice n rideable, the 731 os is a speed monster but feels butter soft, the rt-58 and the tarmac really transfer power in an amazing way, and the lynskey also is a high performer...
a friend asked for a comparison...I replied
good steel is like a ford focus sports....easy reliable tech built well to make a fast performer
good carbon is like a bmw m3....high end tech combining an amazing feel and performance
good titanium is like a Mercedes....you have the performance, but feels like armchair comfort

the other side of the argument is...
steel....yep its great, but im scared of the rust, wet weather and paint chips
carbon...im scared of everything that will make an impact....leaning on lampposts, dropping off workstand etc
titanium....all weather, handle impacts ....a great allrounder
good carbon I think will always outperform, but certainly the fragility factor has me scared to bounce off kerbs, so the performance gains from performance are lost in "walking" off kerbs....

hope this helps

crikey

Meh.
As noted above and ignored by many, the material a frame is made of is more to do with conversations with your mates than any discernible levels of comfort.
I've had:
Gas pipe steel,
531
531T
653
753
853
853 custom
Aluminium gas pipe
Cannondale alu
Cube alu
1990s carbon
modern carbon.

Different bikes feel different.
Would I go back to earlier bikes?
No thanks.

FatTed

I have a Colnago MXL and a Llewellyn custodian. The Llewellyn feels better.(thank the Lord!)

marcusjb

I ride steel bikes mostly. I suspect my next distance bike will be carbon.

As per others, it's not what it's made of, it's what you do with it - and whether you can fit wider tyres in or not.

At the end of the market the OP is looking at, you're buying the best materials, workmanship and marketting. I am sure you will be very happy with any of them.

menthel

I have a steel bike (basic equillibrium with 520 tubing), an aluminium bike (condor italia) and a carbon bike (Aprire Vincenza). From my limited experience the carbon is most comfortable and the steel the least BUT I have managed to alter the comfort of the bikes from their base much more than the differences between the stock bikes. Wide rims and decent tyres (Michelin pro4 sc in 25s) turned the Italia's ride into some sort of magic carpet smoothness- it ironed everything out. That bike now also has a cambium saddle which almost feels sprung- combine the two and you have a super smooth ride.

I guess what I am trying to say is you can alter so many things on a bike that you can have it ride however you want to. You can also design comfort into a frame as well, whatever material is used. Just don't expect ultimate comfort to be attributable to the material from which it is made.

debeli

I cannot say I notice any difference in terms of comfort.

I spend more time on ally frames these days than anything else, but ride and have ridden many types.

I'm with those above who say that saddle, tyres (type and pressure) and road surface make more difference than anything else.

I am a Luddite (but a selective one) so I am drawn to steel, but I like modern rims, brakes and tyres, Ergo levers and clipless pedals.

I think that with steel (and this is not a technical issue) there is a certain 'peace of mind' derived from the confidence that it will not throw any curve balls at you and will plough on through rut and pothole for decade after decade. There's also the confidence gained from not feeling the necessity to use a torque wrench to do everything up...

For comfort, ride a full-susser on balloon tyres. It's all relative. A nice, cared-for bicycle is comfortable and comforting. A neglected, ill-adjusted carbon rocket with niggly gears and thrummy brakes is uncomfortable because it offers no confidence. It's not because of the frame material.

bernithebiker

Ride comfort is FAR more dictated by tyre*, wheel, handlebar, seatpost, and saddle choice than frame.

*and pressure

ugo.santalucia

When I ride my wheels they feel sublime... when I ride the Planet X ones they feel dreadful... just saying...

mmacavity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZbVsrYPOGE

itboffin

this was my 531 steel bike


then i did an upgrade to the groupset and forks


most recently i've booted it with 28c (measures 25) Rubino pro tech tyres and switched the campag shifters to sram rival for a full rival groupset, oh and i've changed the saddle to a fizik something or other that i hate and is really uncomfortable, in the original setup it rode beautifully and was all day comfortable now anything over 50 miles is a struggle.

So yes the ride quality is largely down to finishing kit

itboffin

Oops i forgot the forks change, that was a terrible idea i think the new carbon 1" fork has changed the comfort levels more than anything else.

mmacavity

http://www.smartcycles.com/frame_materials.htm

http://www.kvastainless.com/tubing-info.html

http://fitwerx.com/stiffness-compliance

JayKosta

itboffin wrote:

Oops i forgot the forks change, that was a terrible idea i think the new carbon 1" fork has changed the comfort levels more than anything else.

---

I'm interested in your experience with the carbon fork.
Does it seem too stiff, change the steering / handling 'feel', etc.
From the photos, it looks like the geometry of the old / new forks are similar.
Do you think the fork trouble is related to the manufacturer, or the particular fork 'style' that you chose?

By bike is very similar to your 'before' picture.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

chrisjohnsen

Thanks for all thouhts on the subjet. As I know understand, its more in the fitting than the material. I think I have decided on a Independent Fabrications Steel Crown Jewel. My reason for wanting a steel bike was not just a question of comfort, but also of aesthetics and longevity. Hopefully a propper fitting perfore ordering will be able to give me all three. I am planning to build it up with Ultegra Di2 (with a PMP crank in the long run), Deda finishing kit and maybe some H plus Son wheels (with 25mm tires), or the Hed Ardenne Fr´s I have on the Focus.