Framebuilders - New Steel

After research of newer steels, TruTemper S-3,Reynolds 853 and 953, Columbus life and spirit, Dedacciai SAT 14,5. They all seem to have extraordinary strength and lightweight. Some compare light weight close to carbon, and their strength to titanium. They all seem to have some faults too. Just a few things I found out seems that they are losing before they start. In their quest for lightweight they make the stock tubes so thin walled that heavier riders should not get them. I found that a TruTemper S-3 frameset has a wight limit of 200 lbs. R-853 has tube diameters are not well suited for chain and seat stays. R-953 might not be suitable for heavy riders or loaded riding and it is not seamless tubing. Steel frames are associated with heavy riding. Also even minor accidents produce more stresses on a frame than what any riders weighs. So the purpose of this thread is to get opinions and any other information people have found out.

The new steels can, in theory, make a very strong frame that's as light as carbon or Al if the tubes are made large enough in diameter and sufficiently thin walled.

However, the problem lies with the very thin walls needed to keep the weight down. The tubes are strong enough in tension but are subject to "beer can" buckling. Any time a tube wall is less than about 1/50th of it's diameter the tube becomes fairly easy to buckle. This ratio can be exceeded slightly but is a serious problem with very thin wall tubing of any material. This is the structural limitation that prevents taking full advantage of the new steel's fabulous tensil and yield strength.

Another potentially serious problem is rust as paper thin steel tubes have almost no allowance for corrosion loss so they must be carefully protected.

I'm looking into a new steed next year and open to all materials. It seems good steel, no matter the label, has about a two pound penalty over good carbon and one pound over good Ti. That said, I was looking an 853 Co-Motion road bike that was sub 16lbs when fully built up with nice, but not exotic components. That's still pretty damn light. As to corrosion, it's just a matter of care. Apply Framesaver and don't let water stand inside the tubes after a rainy ride. I suspect Ti has pretty much had it's day (still viable) and carbon is still a ways from full maturity as a frame material. Aluminum is at full maturity (IMHO) and will stick around until carbon beats it in the bang-for-buck category. Just my $.02

I think you would get better answers from the frame builders forum...

I think you would get better answers from the frame builders forum...
I realized that later after I posted it. I will repost it there or try to move it.

The new steels can, in theory, make a very strong frame that's as light as carbon or Al if the tubes are made large enough in diameter and sufficiently thin walled.

However, the problem lies with the very thin walls needed to keep the weight down. The tubes are strong enough in tension but are subject to "beer can" buckling. Any time a tube wall is less than about 1/50th of it's diameter the tube becomes fairly easy to buckle. This ratio can be exceeded slightly but is a serious problem with very thin wall tubing of any material. This is the structural limitation that prevents taking full advantage of the new steel's fabulous tensil and yield strength.

Another potentially serious problem is rust as paper thin steel tubes have almost no allowance for corrosion loss so they must be carefully protected.
I have heard about these problems. Steel has a good reputation, but there a purpose for each material used in frames. I like steel but if I change my riding style I would get any material I needed to make for the most efficient ride. Are the steel frame makers trying to be something they are not.

Are the steel frame makers trying to be something they are not.
Not really. Frame makers are aware of this limitation and choose their tubing diameters and wall thickness to avoid it. That's why there are no practical sub 2.5 pound steel frames available even though, theoretically, one could be built.

A good frame can be built of bamboo, carbon, aluminum, or steel. There are a number of characteristics of the various materials that are generally poorly understood, if at all, by bike afficianados. Bike afficianados also lose track about what's really important in a bike.

A pound difference in total bike weight won't make a difference to you if you don't qualify to ride in the pro tour. By the way, lots of bike in the Paris-Roubaix weighed up to 18.5 lbs. Most of the bike mag's perpetuate the marketeer thinking that strongly influences riders opinions on bikes/frames etceteras; its good to get past these influences.

Any frame material has it's rider size limits. Look at what the pro's ride. The really big guys sometimes have a custom made frame - which is of a different material from what you're being sold. At issue are weight and riding style. These impact stiffness and durability. A frame may be stiff enough for you and still break. A frame may not break under you, yet be stiff enough.

No one can build frames to the lightest weights, and still make them stiff and strong enough for the biggest most choppy riders. Recommended limits are just that, recommended. They're a guideline as to where riders may have problems with stiffness and or strength. Because a material or bike maker doesn't specify a limit doesn't mean that there is none. This leads to the first problem with the observations above:
1) The comparison of limits above is apples to oranges. Find material suppliers for given sets of carbon and aluminum tubes and find out what their rider weight limits are. Then find out their useful lives (the old issue of fatigue). Then we can begin to have a constructive discussion of the merits of various tubes.

Do you really think Reynolds would offer seamed tubing if it was at a disadvantage to other methods. For their premium, top of the line tubing?
2) Good seamed tubing is just as good as good seamless tubing. Seamed tubing goes through a number of additional processes before reaching its final delivered state, just as drawn tubing does.
You, the consumer don't need to worry about how the tubing was formed if you work with a reputable builder. By the way, most True Temper tubing starts as seamed tubing.

The interplay of stiffness, ride and handling is poorly understood. Frame materials don't eliminate bumps or buzz. Frame measurements are notorious for measuring something other than what stresses the bike frame undergoes on the road. If the rider doesn't know the material in his or her frame, they can't guess it by the ride.

No one really knows much about 953 yet, it isn't generally available and only a couple of builders have even used it. Guessing as to which tubes will be available in what gauges is silly. Typically, steel tubing manufacturers have been slower to make their high end tubing available for forks and stays than for main tubes. The high-end tubes tend to be harder and brittler than normal tubes. The latter term needs a little more explanation, its relative. All steels remain more ductile than carbon fiber or any of the aluminums. However, the fork blades and stays tend to undergo more flex and stress than main tubes. Manufacturers' caution has kept the new formulations away from these uses until enough real-world use convinced them that there would be no fatigue issues. By the way, stays are now available in 853.

Dent's in your steel tubes, while not real common aren't a big problem. Generally, strength and stiffness haven't been compromised. Lightweight aluminum suffers the same problem - and same results. Carbon doesn't work this way. By the time the tube deforms, it generally breaks. This doesn't happen very often, however.

Did you pay attention to Hincapie's fork failure at Paris-Roubaix? The aluminum steerer failed. We don't get to closely study and understand what happened, Trek is naturally investigating this privately.

But, it appears that it suffered a fatigue failure, possibly excacerbated by a stress riser. It was aluminum. Steel can fail, but probably wouldn't have under these circumstances. It doesn't have the fatigue issues of aluminum. A number of bikes switched to forks with steel steerers for the P-R just to avoid this kind of problem. While carbon seems to continuously become more durable, even this year we saw steel frames at P-R this year. Why? If you don't finish, you can't win.

By now everyone should be aware that steel has a very different failure mode from carbon or aluminum. Steel generally fails slowly - given ample warning over time. This allows the rider to recognize the risk and get off the bike for closer inspection. Aluminum and carbon tend to just break.

Moreover, carbon and aluminum are susceptable to notch failure. A scratch (in the case of carbon it has to go through the clearcoat and into the carbon fiber) creates a stress riser, and that riser can lead to a premature (and sudden) failure. There is a possibility that Hincapie's stem twisted in his first fall. That and twisting it back to straight may have put a score line around the steerer tube. This is one of the possible causes for the failure that put him out of the race. Too bad he didn't have steel. An extra 100 grams may have allowed him to win, instead of getting injured. If this is what happened, carbon would have presented the same risk. Which is why Time (as an example) replaced their carbon steerers with steel.

Now which materials: "are losing before they start"? They all work, they can all make great frames, they're all challenged when rider size goes over 200 lbs. Pick what you like and ride it well. Just don't spend too much time trying to intellectualize your choice of frame material - it serves no one well.

After research of newer steels, TruTemper S-3,Reynolds 853 and 953, Columbus life and spirit, Dedacciai SAT 14,5. They all seem to have extraordinary strength and lightweight. Some compare light weight close to carbon, and their strength to titanium. They all seem to have some faults too. Just a few things I found out seems that they are losing before they start. In their quest for lightweight they make the stock tubes so thin walled that heavier riders should not get them. I found that a TruTemper S-3 frameset has a wight limit of 200 lbs. R-853 has tube diameters are not well suited for chain and seat stays. R-953 might not be suitable for heavy riders or loaded riding and it is not seamless tubing. Steel frames are associated with heavy riding. Also even minor accidents produce more stresses on a frame than what any riders weighs. So the purpose of this thread is to get opinions and any other information people have found out.

I think you're thinking out loud here a bit and not making a hell of a lot of sense. There are no good or bad frame materials, only good or bad designs. Any decent designer can make a nice steel frame that will ride with the characteristics they're after for whatever the customer is after. Naturally there are limits, but if you're after a nice steel frame there's not much stopping you short of putting your faith in a designer and letting them choose the right tubes for the right job.

Arguing that "853 is better than Life" or anything along those lines is arbitrary as the differences between the two more often than not comes down to little more than personal preference.

The 853 frames that I've enjoyed since 2000 have had rear triangles made of Reynolds 725 steel alloy. I don't know if there even exists such a thing as a 853 rear triangle tube set but I can definitely recommend Reynolds 853 as a frame material. I think it's great.