Road Cycling - How much does a frame REALLY matter?

I got to wondering, how much does a frame REALLY matter to the overall bike experience? I'm wondering this cause it seems like my frame is the weakest link of all my components (it was the cheapest at least).

Basically, i'm wondering if there would be a huge difference in ride quality, going from an 80s bianchi steel frame to say, a more modern tig welded steel bianchi frame?

Frame is the most important component of the bike. You need to get some photogs up so I can see your frame. I may be able to help you ID it. Closeups of the fork crown, head lugs, seat stay caps(at seat lug), and dropouts will help.

The difference between a good lugged frame and a good TIG frame is subjective, and will vary depending on a zillion different factors.

Put some b4 photogs up also, if you have them.

I think it will depend a great deal on which end of the Bianchi spectrum the frames were/are from. An upper level steel frame from the '80s is not going to
give up much if anything to a contemporary steel frame. It will be a bit heavier. It will have some draw backs if you want to deretro the old frame with say a 9spd groupo of some sort. According to some posters recently a good deal of Italian invective will accompany any attempt to put a Sh.... group on. Steve

any frame fromthe 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames.

Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness.

I've relegated My 1989 model Bianchi SL to a training bike with odd bits and pieces hanging off it. It's way heavier than an really cheap AL frame I picked up my LBS for £200! It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality.

Bike gemetry and design hascomealong way over the last 15yrs.

Quote:

"any frame from the 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames."

Isn't that a sweeping statement? Based on what?

Quote:

"Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness."

I thought most modern frames were a compromise, designed to give value at a given price point, for a wide variety of consumers. That "blend" may or may not suit you as an individual.

Quote:

"It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality."

I call 'more flexy' a difference in ride quality. I also might prefer a more or less resilient ride to you.

Quote:

"Bike geometry and design has come a long way over the last 15yrs."

I ride bikes with 74 degree seat angles and 54 centimetre top tubes. These measurements and thus the geometry, have remained unchanged for 35 years because my thigh length, back length and arm length have remained unchanged. Please explain what I'm doing wrong- and tell the major manufacturers who still appear to use the formulae they used in the 80's...fork rake, castor angle, seat stay length, etc., etc.

Design. Hmmmm. You mean carbon fibre saddles? Carbon Fibre forks and stays to make a bike tolerable to ride all day? Or something groundbreaking, like aheadsets? How did we survive without those?

I don't think you generalising like this is helping the poster. I think he should ride a bunch of frames to see what he likes but not over-invest in a frame he isn't satisfied with.

Well, when this thing is finished, i still ahve the option of trading up to a better frame in 2 years or so. I can reuse most of the components.

Originally posted by Flaneur
Quote:

"any frame from the 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames."

Isn't that a sweeping statement? Based on what?

No it's not a sweeping statement. Frames in the 80's were silver soldered together using lugs. Today they are tig welded in inert atmospheres. This change alone has allowed lighter, more rigid and tunable designs.


"Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness."

I thought most modern frames were a compromise, designed to give value at a given price point, for a wide variety of consumers. That "blend" may or may not suit you as an individual.

are you saying that frames from the 80's are not a compromise?!
Every frame is compromise. always has been always will be, It's just that the newer designs are better at it than the old ones


"It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality."

I call 'more flexy' a difference in ride quality. I also might prefer a more or less resilient ride to you.

By flexy i refer to lateral stiffness, ie BB sway. The cheap Al frame I have is just as compliant vertically as the old steel one but much stiffer at the bb.




"Bike geometry and design has come a long way over the last 15yrs."

I ride bikes with 74 degree seat angles and 54 centimetre top tubes. These measurements and thus the geometry, have remained unchanged for 35 years because my thigh length, back length and arm length have remained unchanged. Please explain what I'm doing wrong- and tell the major manufacturers who still appear to use the formulae they used in the 80's...fork rake, castor angle, seat stay length, etc., etc.

OPtions open to riders are far greater today than they were in the 80's. Now theres compact geometry, sport geometry along with the conventioanl geometry. The basic dimentions that make a bike work for a rider are still the same, the technology of tube shaping and tuning these hapes and materials to achieve a specific ride for a different size frames of the same model is a definate improvement.



Design. Hmmmm. You mean carbon fibre saddles? Carbon Fibre forks and stays to make a bike tolerable to ride all day? Or something groundbreaking, like aheadsets? How did we survive without those?

If you like the old systems then fine, you keep them, but I appreciate the weight savings and gain in strength of the A-Headset system. CF saddles?? Gimick!
CF forks are an improvement, provided you're talking monomoulded forks like the Reynolds Ouz Pro

WRT design I refer mainly to improvements in materials: Tube shaping, varying wall thickness in specific areas, not just butting, varying tube diameter and blending these different shapes together to achieve a different feel. Even Elcheapo AL frames achieve this quite nicely today. Perhaps we can live without it but will you give up your car in support of your arguement??


I don't think you generalising like this is helping the poster. I think he should ride a bunch of frames to see what he likes but not over-invest in a frame he isn't satisfied with.

If you refer back to the original post, you will notice that the question was a general one and therefore you get a generalised answer. If you want me to answer indepth you'll have to wait for the book.

Originally posted by TimB
any frame fromthe 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames.
...
Bike gemetry and design hascomealong way over the last 15yrs.

So, a bottom of the line Bianchi will be a better ride than
say, a Carlsbad Masi? A Confente? A Colnago Mexico?
What about an early Richard Sachs?
Serotta, Tommasini, Pogliaghi, Eisentraut, Paramount,
Gios, DeRosa, all very fine steel Lugged Frames.
I'd put my 85 Trek up against most steel bikes currently
made (production, not say Sachs Vanilla, Moon, Kirk etc.).
FWIW the Lugs vs. TIG (or Fillet Brazed for that matter) has
very little to do with ride quality, its a method of joining tubes
thats all.

Marty

all wonderful pimpy works of art.
However what makes them any different from any other lugged steel frame of the same era?
The name, the paint job and of course the attention to detail.

as I stated in my earlier post. I have a Lugged Columbus SL Bianchi from 1989 and a 6061-T6 elceheapo aluminium frame Dave Quinn as training bikes and it is very clear to me, everytime I step over the Al bike that is superior in performance to the Bianchi in every way and relatively it cost's a lot less.

So yes I would say that an ElCheapo Bianchi would give any of those Pimpy Steel Dinosaurs you mentioned a reall run for their tubing on a climb, TT or a Sprint.
Quite simply IME, Modern bikes perform better than bikes of 15 yrs ago.

OPS: 'Simply' Joining tubes together is a joke. Weld quality and solder quality will vary depending on the skill of the welder /solderperson conducting the work.
Today there is a bigger skill base in the industry to produce quality frames than there was 15 yrs ago.

This 'we must bow down and worship the old stuff' is ridiculous. I'll giv you a 10er for all of them and then you can watch me crush them in a press and send them on for recycling. Thats all those old frames are good for anyway.
Perhaps I'll turn them into chairs....

Tim

You my good man are a philistine :D

I'll take my "pimpy" steel frames, thank you very much.



Weld quality and solder quality will vary depending on the skill of the welder /solderperson conducting the work.
Today there is a bigger skill base in the industry to produce quality frames than there was 15 yrs ago.

Please elucidate how an elcheapo machine tig welded bike
which you are using in the arguement about your Bianchi vs Alu
fits into this statement? what skill is there for a machine
to tig the frame?
TIG and Fillet brazing (let alone lugged frames) have been
around a lot longer than 15 years they ar not a recent advancement.

Marty

Basically, i'm wondering if there would be a huge difference in ride quality, going from an 80s bianchi steel frame to say, a more modern tig welded steel bianchi frame?

No, there will not be. There will be a dig difference in marketing cost to the manufacturer and that will be passed to you, but you have already spent that money.

If I had to guess on the differences in ride quality of modern steel vs. modern steel of the 80's I would bet the average road rider would not know the difference provided the geometry was the same.

Anyone who states otherwise must be finishing a career as a pro-rider and has the experience on both, or they have bought into the marketing hype on "new" welding techniques.

I know others don't agree, but that is my thought on the subject. I just see bike makers having to come up with an edge over the others to sell bikes. Bottom line is you pay for wieght, modern steel frames weigh less, sometimes as much as a pound compared to quality bikes of the past.

Regards,

ehenz

Originally posted by TimB
all wonderful pimpy works of art. I'll giv you a 10er for all of them and then you can watch me crush them in a press and send them on for recycling.

Ouch! That hurt!:eek: You wouldn't really do that would you? Of course, thats the way I felt 28ys ago when I was looking at a state of the art ,20 yr old racing frame from some Italian factory where some guy took a hammer and pounded the lugs into shape around the tubes while the whole thing was cherry hot and comparing it to my state of the art Tim Isaac work of "art".

But to me, the old italian frame provoked no emotive attachment because I hadn't experienced my first ride on silks on a frame like that; I hadn't had a peak experience cresting a hill on an endorphin high, and witnessed the rising sun over a fall valley on a frame like that; I hadn't had the biggest competitive win of my life in the local criterium on a frame like that. All those things make a person -feel- like everything about that bike, the ride, the form , the function is in fact the peak of expression in bicycle form and function. Everything else before and after is abherrant.

While acknowledging the advances in technology and the benefits that some of the bicycles today have, I still feel, for what are to me objective reasons, that the bicycle that Indurain rode on, the bicycles from the time of the step in pedal to the advent of the indexing systems, were the peak of minimalist expression in the development of the bicycle. But then, that's just me.

The point here being that this is an almost impossible argument to discuss objectively. As a result, the only answer as to what is right is what evers right for you.

Originally posted by lotek
Tim

You my good man are a philistine :D

I'll take my "pimpy" steel frames, thank you very much.




Please elucidate how an elcheapo machine tig welded bike
which you are using in the arguement about your Bianchi vs Alu
fits into this statement? what skill is there for a machine
to tig the frame?
TIG and Fillet brazing (let alone lugged frames) have been
around a lot longer than 15 years they ar not a recent advancement.

Marty

:D Thats one more off the Xmas Card list then.

The skill in the machine welder is th repeatability of the quality of the weld. The operator can set up the machine to weld frame after frame with similar amounts of weld, similar temperatures and a similar weld run time. Cheaper and more consistant quality. Can only be a good thing for everyone.

Yes Tig Welding has been around for a long time but it was confined to the Aerospace and Autosports industry's.

So in short more skilled personel to either do the weldign themselvesor set up machine to do it should tranlate into higher quality.
So if someone wanting to get into the sport today goes to a LBS to buy a bike at a specific price point he/she will be better off than someone purchasing at a simialr price point 15 yrs ago.

Why?
1)Quality control is better

2)Materials are more advanced as well as aftertreatment employed

3)availability of skilled labour is higher making it easier for manufacturers to get good people
4) More widespread use of CNC machines for tube mitrering alignment and welding makes quality more consistent.

5) even though the basic geometry is still the same, the interaction of the differently shaped tubes at the junctions has improved stress distribution resulting lighter frames that are just as strong.

In short, again, modern frames are superior to their counterparts of 15yrs ago, Believe it......................... or not:beer:

Originally posted by TimB
all wonderful pimpy works of art.
However what makes them any different from any other lugged steel frame of the same era?
The name, the paint job and of course the attention to detail.

as I stated in my earlier post. I have a Lugged Columbus SL Bianchi from 1989 and a 6061-T6 elceheapo aluminium frame Dave Quinn as training bikes and it is very clear to me, everytime I step over the Al bike that is superior in performance to the Bianchi in every way and relatively it cost's a lot less.

So yes I would say that an ElCheapo Bianchi would give any of those Pimpy Steel Dinosaurs you mentioned a reall run for their tubing on a climb, TT or a Sprint.
Quite simply IME, Modern bikes perform better than bikes of 15 yrs ago.

OPS: 'Simply' Joining tubes together is a joke. Weld quality and solder quality will vary depending on the skill of the welder /solderperson conducting the work.
Today there is a bigger skill base in the industry to produce quality frames than there was 15 yrs ago.

This 'we must bow down and worship the old stuff' is ridiculous. I'll giv you a 10er for all of them and then you can watch me crush them in a press and send them on for recycling. Thats all those old frames are good for anyway.
Perhaps I'll turn them into chairs....


I don't know much about bike frames, but i have to agree with you .....when it comes to cars.
I've had countless arguements about how a midlevel sportcar made today puts even super cars made in the 70s and 80s to shame. for instance a 2003 corvette Z06 vs. a 1989 ferrari Tesstarossa. The corvette wins in almost every aspect of performance, but you're always goin to have people that love the classics. The bottomline is that it is all about opinion and arguing about opinion isn't worth the time. If someone thinks that something is better because its not mass produced let them have their silly opinion. I would rather save my money and get better performance rather than sacrifice it for exclusivity.

Originally posted by TimB

1)Quality control is better

2)Materials are more advanced as well as aftertreatment employed

3)availability of skilled labour is higher making it easier for manufacturers to get good people
4) More widespread use of CNC machines for tube mitrering alignment and welding makes quality more consistent.

5) even though the basic geometry is still the same, the interaction of the differently shaped tubes at the junctions has improved stress distribution resulting lighter frames that are just as strong.

1) Agreed, ever seen the lugwork on some of the Italian
Masters frames? They didn't care about it, the bike had to
ride right, and had to be brazed correctly, they didn't care
about the asthetics of the frame, it was a machine to be used
for racing. However that can't be said of modern framebuilders such
as Albert Eisentraut, Richard Sachs, Peter Weigle, David Kirk,
Curt Goodrich, Brian Baylis, Peter Moon (I could go on if you want)
who take unprecedented amounts of pride in their workmanship.

2)531 was pretty good stuff, as was the Columbus SL, SLX TSX
etc. how does it stack up against say 853? I'm betting that
very few could discern the difference.

3) How much skilled labour is needed for the machines to consistantly weld a frame? one person to set it up per factory?
I don't think this plays into it. I also don't think that whoever is
building low end bikes this week really cares.

4) but where are the file marks? Sure CNC helps but if its welded
poorly its a moot point. I think TIG is useful in hiding bad mitres,
poor joints etc.

5) Case in point, Ben Serotta double taper tubes, he invented the idea with his Colorado tubing (1986), as well as S-Bend
chain stays, that was in 1984 (older than your 15 year cut off)

6) No TIG welded bike has ever been mentioned in the same
sentence with the word mojo.

7) Does this mean I don't get a Channukah card too? :lol:

Marty

Originally posted by TimB
any frame fromthe 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames.

Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness.

I've relegated My 1989 model Bianchi SL to a training bike with odd bits and pieces hanging off it. It's way heavier than an really cheap AL frame I picked up my LBS for £200! It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality.

Bike gemetry and design hascomealong way over the last 15yrs.

Balderdash.

There have been no bike geometry or design innovations of much consequence in the past 50 years--save mtn bikes of course. Certainly superior quality metals and tube sets are available; and TIG welding has allowed the introduction of low skill, mass manufacturing of bike frames (as well as aluminum and Ti frames). Nevertheless, a good butted and lugged steel frame from the 80's will be a pound or so heavier, but will ride just fine for anything other than very high performance racing.

Dave
who likes dropping young snot-nosed titanium racer types while riding his old, lugged steel fixed gear bike

Originally posted by hayneda
Balderdash.

There have been no bike geometry or design innovations of much consequence in the past 50 years--save mtn bikes of course. Certainly superior quality metals and tube sets are available; and TIG welding has allowed the introduction of low skill, mass manufacturing of bike frames (as well as aluminum and Ti frames). Nevertheless, a good butted and lugged steel frame from the 80's will be a pound or so heavier, but will ride just fine for anything other than very high performance racing.

Dave
who likes dropping young snot-nosed titanium racer types while riding his old, lugged steel fixed gear bike

I guess Sti or ergo power shifts don't rank up there with design innovation then.

Your comment on Tig welding allowing low skill manufacturing is very funny indeed. Have you ever tried to Tig weld 2 thin walled tubes together? I guess not. If done by hand, it requires more skill than brazing does which is why it's actually better to have a machine do it.
In fact Silver soldering is considered a low skill job in industry these days.

I suppose high strength adhesives are also not a technical breakthrough,
Nor carbon fibre frames (essentially reinforced Tupperware)

No the fact that 6Al 4V titanium can be manufactured into tubes.

Hollowtech cranks?? Theres a manufacturing breakthrough!

10 speed cassettes is another.

Of course the biggest breakthrough of all is improvements in rider training through use of HRM's. Ohhhhhhh getting too techno for you

Perhaps all these advancements as you call it is just fashion. Buthey if fashion makes me ride faster, I'm there at opening time.

Tim,

thanks for clearing up a few points.

-I agree that lateral stiffness was an issue for lots of people in the 80's. Not for me, though..I had a 753 frame, with cast lugs and the tubes were short (I mentioned my short legs earlier). Best climbing frame I ever rode.

I also rode frames back then which were glued together and others which were threaded and glued. Lugs were not universal as you seem to have mis-remembered. The alternatives were not always an improvement- some of the larger sized Alans and Vitus's didn't last long in race conditions. TIG welded frames vary in quality, as they did back in the 80's. I own both a new and an 80's TIG. I'm not a Luddite but I don't share your faith in machines and modern workmanship in respect of bikes.

I'm glad you agree that basic geometry is unchanged. Any deviations from these fixed physical requirements are either likely to lead to rider injury or underperformance. Compact geometry looks nice on Mountain bikes, IMO and may or may not save a little weight. TT bikes have aerodynamic advantages, which were developed for the most part in the 80's.

A lot of the tubing improvements you mention are 80's developments as well. I think their wider dissemination amongst mid-range machines is laudable but not always evident. Some of these ideas have more exclusivity value than practical benefit.

On the subject of practicality, we really should return to Phatty's original point. Doesn't it really matter what he as an individual likes, needs, is used to? What does he want from a frame, how does he ride and in what conditions- weather, road, race (if, and what type)?

You may be comfortable on anything, and like a very stiff ride, only race on a well-surfaced road circuit and be gentle on equipment. My requirements might be the exact opposite of yours, given my age, medical history, preferences and the uses the bike will be put to. I know that mass-produced, mid-market frames sometimes present problems for me and others, that are insoluble- usually around comfort. Your criteria are about weight saving and stiffness, as if these were the only measurements that mattered. For my purposes, comfort and performance are the opposites which I must reconcile, for example in a 600km randonee or a 24 hour time trial. Your analysis, that new always beats old, is counter-intuitive to me; I know I would never complete these kinds of event on a bike designed to your specification of superiority. The truth is that there is more than one true vision of progress and functionality, which you clearly enjoy denying:)

If I ride more effectively on a bike you consider outmoded, using say, heavier components, that I know won't let me down (he said with fingers crossed)curlier forks than you think efficient- or an old frame I have confidence in, no amount of data, engineer speak or dismissive discourse will alter the timekeeper's judgement.

I wonder if you think the 1970's Flying Scot frame I was given for free is Pimpy? I completed Paris-Brest-Paris on it 8 years ago. The variety of bikes evident at such gatherings suggests your view of efficiency is a truncated one........

Originally posted by TimB


Of course the biggest breakthrough of all is improvements in rider training through use of HRM's. Ohhhhhhh getting too techno for you



Too technical for me huh? Too bad I'm a NASA rocket scientist.

The question was about frames not components. But do you really need 10 cogs? The world record 1 hour time trail was done on a fixed (1 cog). STI is nice, but certainly not necessary and also heavier than DT levers.

I also believe I mentioned better metals and tubesets.

GRP-graphite reinforced plastic (aka Carbon fiber)--not yet an established technology. Likes to delaminate unpredicably. I've personally owned two plastic bikes and both delaminated and failed.

Dave

How much does a frame REALLY matter?

It helps in holding the wheels, seat and handlebars together. In my opinion, you're going to need one if you're interested in any kind of serious cycling.

Originally posted by MediaCreations
It helps in holding the wheels, seat and handlebars together. In my opinion, you're going to need one if you're interested in any kind of serious cycling.

Well... then how do you explain your avatar? :D

Originally posted by khuon
Well... then how do you explain your avatar? :D

It's a mono-cock!:D That's gotta hurt!:eek:

I'm just glad I'm not really the guy in the avatar. That back wheel's gotta be hurting.

Originally posted by hayneda
Too technical for me huh? Too bad I'm a NASA rocket scientist.

The question was about frames not components. But do you really need 10 cogs? The world record 1 hour time trail was done on a fixed (1 cog). STI is nice, but certainly not necessary and also heavier than DT levers.

I also believe I mentioned better metals and tubesets.

GRP-graphite reinforced plastic (aka Carbon fiber)--not yet an established technology. Likes to delaminate unpredicably. I've personally owned two plastic bikes and both delaminated and failed.

Dave

For a rocket scientist you're remarkably blinded to a few discrepancies in your post.

The world hour record was conducted on a velodrome ie an indoor or outdoor track which mimicks a flat road. I'd like to see the record holder ride that bike up and down hills and mountains all day long. What is the relevance of your statement?

Also your comment on GRP (which is actually an acronym used for Glass Reinforced Polyester - but thats just me being pedantic) relaminating regularly is an interesting one. Now being a Mechanical Engineer myself and also being involved in the non air breathing aerospace field for a number of yrs before a career change, I know that composites arelimited in their application.
However delamination of modern CF frames is almost unheard of.
Yes they did happen to earlier frames Ie around the 80's early 90's but construction in this material has advanced quite remarkably through implementationo of Formula 1 know how.

Flaneur:

I confess that my point of view does not take rider preference into account. My answers are based on purely technical grounds. Delving into rider preference becomes a very personal issue and perhaps using old tech frames is working for you but that does not mean that you would not perform better on a modern frame designed with your requirements in mind. You claim it won't be different and I stick to my guns that it will. However if you believe that you won't perform on a modern bike then I'm afraid that modern construction has already lost with you on it. After all, the nitty gritty about any sport is about attitude and will to suceed.

I am unemotional about technology, it's somethng I have to deal with and evaluate almost daily. So perhaps I see the merits of the technology and believe that it is faster. You on the other are coming from a different perspective, the "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" train of thought. And theres nothing wrong with that. However dismissing advances in quality achieved through application of technology is a notion that I cannot subscribe to.

IMO, good quality frames are now available at lower price points than they were 15 yrs ago. and that is an advance.
I will concede that some may feel that their old frames will outperform a modern frame. I beg to differ.

With geometry being suimilar, I believe that you can now find a frame that will help you perform better than you did on your old bike, simply because it is lighter, stiffer (at the BB) and possibly more compliant than your old bike. Aren't those the criteria that all frame designers are stiving to improve??

also I can understand thatyou don;t appreciate my comments, but fact of the matter is, Old steel is not real, it's just old steel. Today the only thing thats real is how the end product feels and fits. It couldbe made from any material, DCRER for instance - Thats Dish cloth reinforced Epoxy Resin for our resident rocket scientist....

:beer:

Originally posted by phat bahsturd
I got to wondering, how much does a frame REALLY matter to the overall bike experience? I'm wondering this cause it seems like my frame is the weakest link of all my components (it was the cheapest at least).

Basically, i'm wondering if there would be a huge difference in ride quality, going from an 80s bianchi steel frame to say, a more modern tig welded steel bianchi frame?

I was seriously hoping when I found this seemingly content happy BB, that I would be able to avoid the pomposity, egotism and sheer elitism of other online "communities" that I've frequented.

I see that this one is no different, for that I"m sorry.

That being said, here's my opinion...

Do you like your present frame? Does it fail you in some way? I doubt that it does. It would be quite human of you to WANT a new frame, but if you questioned yourself, you may find that it's not a NEED.

I've found that pretty much a bike is a bike, whether it be steel, carbon, aluminum or yes, even Ti. Fit is a much more important matter than frame material. Fit gives you the proper proportion of performance and comfort. Fit is the deciding factor between suffering through a 10 mile ride or enjoying a century. Fit can make a 100 dollar garage sale special feel like a 5000 dollar custom

As far as modern components go. I work on bikes for a living. I'd rather rebuild from the ground up 10 bikes from the 70s, than deal with telling 1 pissed off customer that no, the Almighty Shimano won't warranty his third set of busted STIs.

I own a couple of bikes with "modern" conveniences. I love my vintage equipment. I'll take old time reliability.

Originally posted by Farmer John
I love my vintage equipment.

See Farmer John, not many can say they have ridden on a bike as completely and intelligently designed as a Raleigh International. Not many know or can even understand the concept of a bicycle "disappearing" underneath you. I owned a Raleigh Pro. It was my first all Campagnolo equipped road bike. My first ride on it was down a deserted country road sprinkled with fall leaves, a crisp autumn day in Ohio along the Erie Canal. The bike had Clement Campione Del Mondo Seta tires on it, fresh, new, singing silk tires. I'll never forget that ride. You know, and their are others on this forum that know , it's not about the bike, it's about the ride. The total experience is what makes it meaningful for each one of us.

Originally posted by MediaCreations
I'm just glad I'm not really the guy in the avatar. That back wheel's gotta be hurting.
Maybe we've ALL been there -- how do you think we got our butt-cracks?;)

Seriously, different frame designs do different things.

On road bikes, the frame geometry determines the handling -- very sharp for crits, slacker angles for road racing, laid back and easy for touring and randonneurs. Look at TdF and you will see the same rider user different bikes for different stages -- time trials, the flats and the mountains.

With MTBs, it may be full-suspension Y-frame (or whatever) for downhill where weight is faster; something different for X-country. KHS, I think, even makes a Cro-Mo bike that relies on the flex in the chain-stays, to provide suspension (the seat stays meet at a device atop the seat tube). And what about BMXes?

You *can* make a bike designed for one use do something else, but it could be a challenge to ride comfortably -- a BMX as a touring bike? I don't think so.

So, stripping away the science of materials, yes, frame does make a difference.

However, custom frame builders know their craft, and think nothing of *mixing* tube materials to get the best *perceived* ride quality. Of course, they concentrate on the most appropriate dimensions for the rider as the starting point. Again another point -- the efficiencies of tig/mig welding mean lots and lots of bikes coming out one end of a factory that require compromise in fitting for the end-user. And that's OK. Tig/mig is a money matter, related to efficiency, not necessarily (and I say that advisedly) an improvement over the traditional methods.

To do a test on whether one material or another is better, diamond-frame bikes of exactly the same dimensions and angles, including fork, would need to be built and "blind" tested. IIRC, a magazine had this done, and the difference in ride quality between three (?) different metals types was negligible.

And, if you *really* want a definitive answer on whether frame design does make a difference (as opposed to material), talk to a recumbent rider! :)

Originally posted by TimB
:D

Yes Tig Welding has been around for a long time but it was confined to the Aerospace and Autosports industry's.

So in short more skilled personel to either do the weldign themselvesor set up machine to do it should tranlate into higher quality.
:

I have to jump in on this. I have done a great deal of Tig welding. I had to go to school to learn to do it for a year. I have never welded on anything at all related to aerospace or autosports. Tig is much more common than you might think. It is in fact by far the easiest method of welding to learn. I have had to learn all three, mig, tig, and arc welding. One of my training requirements was two years of welding school. There are machines that can be programmed to mig weld or arc weld. I cannot concieve of a machine that could be programmed to tig weld. There is too much human judgement required. When I say machine, I am talking about robots, and I have seen plenty of them in car plants and other places that have automated welding processes. I don't believe a machine will be tig welding in the near future. I especially don't think a machine will be tig welding any types of bicycle frames in the future. If one ever does, I would certainly like to see it done. Best -

Originally posted by phat bahsturd
I got to wondering, how much does a frame REALLY matter to the overall bike experience? I'm wondering this cause it seems like my frame is the weakest link of all my components (it was the cheapest at least).

Basically, i'm wondering if there would be a huge difference in ride quality, going from an 80s bianchi steel frame to say, a more modern tig welded steel bianchi frame? I'll venture the opinion that a high-quality modern steel frame with thin-walled tubing can offer you a combination of a resilient "steel" ride, along with lower frame weight and less flex, compared to a "traditional" frame using the conventional tubing diameters. Whether that translates into a bigger smile on your face or not, that is the question... :)

My last road bike's frame didn't look very special... just an ugly blue TIG'ed Fuji with thin-walled steel tubing that was a touch oversized compared to a "traditional" frame. The ride quality was nice, however, and it did enhance my riding experience. Sign me up for some more thin-walled steel (http://home.comcast.net/~t.mcfadden/Paramount/index.html), baby... lugged, even! :)

I'm going to throw a new cat among the pigeons and suggest that you stay with a conventional-type headset, either Aheadset or threaded, if you get a new frame.

Originally posted by The Terminator
I have to jump in on this. I have done a great deal of Tig welding. I had to go to school to learn to do it for a year. I have never welded on anything at all related to aerospace or autosports. Tig is much more common than you might think. It is in fact by far the easiest method of welding to learn. I have had to learn all three, mig, tig, and arc welding. One of my training requirements was two years of welding school. There are machines that can be programmed to mig weld or arc weld. I cannot concieve of a machine that could be programmed to tig weld. There is too much human judgement required. When I say machine, I am talking about robots, and I have seen plenty of them in car plants and other places that have automated welding processes. I don't believe a machine will be tig welding in the near future. I especially don't think a machine will be tig welding any types of bicycle frames in the future. If one ever does, I would certainly like to see it done. Best -

I suggest you reapply for your weldoing course. it seems you're abit out of date;


More control in automated TIG welding applications
A new rotational TIG Filler system from Panasonic provides filler wire rotational axis control whereby the filler tube can rotate independently of welding torch and robot arm movement
A new rotational TIG Filler system from Panasonic is designed to deliver the optimum level of control in automated TIG welding applications, leading to improved productivity and high levels of repeatable quality when welding mild, stainless and special alloy steels and aluminium.
Fully compatible with Panasonic's range of welding robots, the new seven-axis TIG Filler system provides filler wire rotational axis control whereby the filler tube can rotate independently of welding torch and robot arm movement.
This ensures accurate positioning of the filler wire tube during robot movements and allows complex welds to be achieved without breaking the weld line path.
The TIG Filler system is supplied with a pulse wire feed system that synchronises the wire feed with the pulse effect of the weld set.
Alternatively the pulse frequency of the wire feed can be varied using a time base control that allows pulse feed even when operating in standard welding modes.
Featuring digital interfaces to both the robot and Panasonic's TWX300 AC/DC TIG welding power source, the new TIG Filler system is suitable for both AC and DC welding applications.
The TWX300 welding source offers maximum flexibility by offering AC, DC, Pulse and Mixed AC operating modes to ensure high-reliability welding of components and sub-assemblies across the widest possible range of designs.
The new system will suit a variety of production applications across industries ranging from bicycles and furniture to automotive, medical, catering and domestic appliances.

Automated TIG welding has been used extensively by Giant and other manufacturers.
it is not the easiest welding method to master, Mig welding is. But it has other draw bacs which make it unsuitable for Bicycle frame manufacture.


Mechbon;

I'll venture the opinion that a high-quality modern steel frame with thin-walled tubing can offer you a combination of a resilient "steel" ride, along with lower frame weight and less flex, compared to a "traditional" frame using the conventional tubing diameters. Whether that translates into a bigger smile on your face or not, that is the question...

i agree 100% with that.;)

............wheels make the bike roll......

Here's the frame question that I have, that I still grapple with in my next big purchase. I apologize for the length of this, but this something that I really don't understand and really need to know since I will be spending a considerable amount of money soon.

I can see how light, better rolling wheels, lighter, higher tolerant cranks and bottom brackets, and better, more accurate shifting easily translates into better performance. I still don't get how the frame, assuming you have proper fit regardless, makes such a big difference, more so than higher end components. Beyond weight (and I always thought rolling resistance weight - cranks, wheels, etc. where considerably more imporant in that regard) what is the advantage of having a better frame. Now I'm not talking about a $4000 frame vs $400, but looking at the beginning segment of better bikes costing $1000 on up.

Take my bike for instance, a Specialized Allez Elite. It's got an aluminum frame. I'm sure it's not the nicest, the lightest, highest quality, but it seems solid, but I think my components leave a lot to be disired. If I want to spend $1500 or so to make it better, I keep hearing get a better frame. I don't get that. To me, a new wheelset would provide a much greater realized and measurable performance improvement.

Would you rather have a $3500 bike with a decent $1000 frame and $2500 worth of some of the nicest compents, or a $2500 frame, with Tiagra or 105 and more of the lower end "consumer" grade coponents? Forget the argument that you can always upgrade. Just think if you had to choose: Great frame - generic components or Top of the line compenents - decent frame.

Originally posted by TimB
I suggest you reapply for your weldoing course. it seems you're abit out of date;



Automated TIG welding has been used extensively by Giant and other manufacturers.
it is not the easiest welding method to master, Mig welding is. But it has other draw bacs which make it unsuitable for Bicycle frame manufacture.




When you have 15 years experience, you can decide for yourself which type of welding is easier to do. Any body with limited experience on a tig, knows that it is much easier and cleaner than a mig. Also, anybody who can use a mig, can weld a steel or aluminum bike frame with that process as well.

What you consider to be "automated tig" is actually known as Orbital Welding. Perhaps you should brush up a bit on your internet searches for information.

TimB,

I don't know what your hang up is.

1. I never made any "steel is real" comment.

2. I merely pointed out that frame design has not changed, only materials and tubes have changed.

3. I also pointed out that a slightly lighter "modern" frame would not significantly improve the average riders performance in a measureable way.

4. I also agree that good, new frames are available at reasonable prices. But I disagree that one needs to buy one in order to keep out on the club ride.

There is a great tendency in many sports and hobbies for faning the flames by manufacturers and others that make a profit when people purchase new equipment. Competition is fierce to offer the 'latest,' 'lightest,' or 'fastest' new widget that "no serious rider" would be without. Sure a lot of the new stuff is nice and I use much of it, but most is totally unnecessary to enjoy cycling and to even be competative at the entry level. This has also fostered a certain amount of 'elitism' amongst some riders who look down upon the poor wretch that shows up on the line without the latest boutique wheelset, or 10 speed cogset.

Back to the original posted question: does a 20 year old steel frameset hold back a rider? Assuming it's a quality butted frameset then the answer is obviously "No." If you don't believe me, then consider what difference a 3 lb weight difference would mean. A typical 175 lb rider on a 23 lb bike weighs a total of 198 lbs. Put the same rider on a "modern" 20 lb bike, the total is 195 lbs. That's a 1.5% difference. That is insignificant. If this same rider were getting dropped at 198, he'll still get dropped at 195. Now if he looses 20 lbs off the engine, he'll kick butt on either bike.

And please don't come back with that tired arguement about frame flex. A metallic frame is a near perfect spring and any energy put into flexing the frame comes back out with very little damping. As a mechical engineer you should know that. That's why cars have shock absorbers (dampers)--otherwise they would bounce continuously.

Dave
who is disgusted with all the hype that "you gotta have the latest or you aint sh_t"--it's the legs, not the bike or the mouth.

Originally posted by TimB


Mechbon;
{Quote**
I'll venture the opinion that a high-quality modern steel frame with thin-walled tubing can offer you a combination of a resilient "steel" ride, along with lower frame weight and less flex, compared to a "traditional" frame using the conventional tubing diameters. Whether that translates into a bigger smile on your face or not, that is the question...

Mechbon;

i agree 100% with that.;)

After all that discussion and disagreement you now agree? :confused:

ehenz,

I agree that there is a difference which is what I've been saying all along..

A bigger smile on your face is purely subjective and largely dependant on what the riders likes/wants are.

Hayneda,
In theory metal springs are perfect and return to their point of origin with no permanent deformation.
However a Bike frame is designed with a certain amount of pre stressing which reduces the amount of additional stress you can apply to the frame before exceeding the elastic limit. Even a vlaue slightly over the elasticlimit will result in a small amount of creep and eventually permanent deformation of failure. Thats why frames can fail under faigue testing.

Any frame that has been ridden hard for a number of yrs will eventually fail. some tubes simply become soft or more flexible ie looses it's springyness (even car coil soprings have a finite life but are over designed to keep stress within limits).

Bike frames are designed a lot closer to the materials limits, particularly frames manufactured from tubesets such as Reynolds 753, to reduce their weight. The steel frames from the late 80's were at the limit of what was technically possible at that time and as you know, anything pushing the limits is more prone to failure than something operating well within it's limits.

All I have been trying to say (unsuccessfully it seems) is that modern steel frames are better than the old frames form the 80's due to improvements in design ie construction technique, detailing, more in depth analysis of the stresses in the frame and where, tailoring of the material to suit the application, tailoring the shape of the tube to enhance it's moment of inertia at a specific point of a deflection to limit that deflection.

The difference between those two stel frames ie one from 1989 and one from 2003 will be very apparent the moemtn you start turning the pedals.

Whether or not the rider cares is totatlly irrelevant.

Also I did not say that riding an old bike precludes people from enjoying the sport.
The question was;

I got to wandering, how much does a frame really matter to the overall bike experience? I'm wondering this cause it seems like my frame is the weakest link of all my components (it was the cheapest at least)

The frame matters to the overall biking experience because without it you don't have a bike, just a collection of parts. The frame is one aspect of getting your power from your legs to the road. So a heavy flexy frame will be detrimental to your performance even if you like the way it feels. You could be performing better on something that does'nt feel as good but is quicker on climbs and under acceleration.


basically I'm wondering if there would be a huge difference in ride quality going from an 80's Bianchi steel frame to say a more modern tig welded steel Bianchi frame?

Yes there will be a huge difference. The more modern bike will be lighter and stiffer and possibly as compliant, all factors which will contribute to whether you like the bike or not.
The older frame should NOT STOP ANYONE RIDING. enjoyment of the sport should not be determined by the equipment.
It will prevent them maximising their performance.

So there you have it. No older frames don't stop you riding, but you will be slower under performance conditions than you could be on a more modern rig.

Well, i guess the general consensus here is that it won't really matter for me, right? I'm no racer, but i'll probably get into club rides and stuff next year.

The difference between a modern frame and an older frame would be too small for a novice rider like me to really notice, right?

Originally posted by phat bahsturd
Well, i guess the general consensus here is that it won't really matter for me, right? I'm no racer, but i'll probably get into club rides and stuff next year.

The difference between a modern frame and an older frame would be too small for a novice rider like me to really notice, right?

That's correct. The differences in your performance would be inconsequencial. The biggest difference you'd likely note would be when lifting the old frame bike onto your bike rack.

However, bikes are cool things. One of the neatest things about cycling is that here you have a sport/pastime/hobby or whatever you call it, where the average middle income person can afford the very best there is in terms of equipment. Not many sports or pastimes enjoy that level of affordability.

My point is, you don't have to have the latest, greatest equipment to have fun, ride with club, or even race successfully and with great enjoyment. But, if it's what you want to spend your money on, there's no reason not to do so if you can afford it. Just don't try to justify that a new Ti frame is going to make you 20% faster--it just aint gonna happen.

Good luck,
Dave

phat,

Thats the point i was making earlier. You can now buy a modern low end bike made of plain gauge aluminium tubing and it would be light and stiff enough for you to enjoy your riding and still compete in intermediate or novice level events and you bike would not be holding you back.
However if it was the 80's equipment of that same level would have you delivering the mail every morning and it would only be available in black.

So if you read whatI'm saying is that if you already have an older frame it will be ok for that level of riding. However if you wnat to spend a bit of money on a new bike you won't have to break the bank to obtain a bike with better performance than your current Oldie.

I've raced my Elcheapo in Kermesse (Criterium, only longer lap aka >1km) because I'm too damn scared of getting my race bike written off by an over zealous Armstrong wannabee.

Enjoy your cycling, whatever you have and if you want to start spending a bit on the sport, You'll probably get kit that will help you perform better for less than $1000.
Thats the way the sport has changed. Better quality lower down the order.

Its ok to just ride and not race,right?

Lets all just go for a ride and be friends again. :) Besides, I like a debate that is interesting.

oh brother, shokhed ibelieve i said that. man do you love a wind up....

LOL Whats a wind up?

Wait, TimB, you know that i just bought a new Campy veloce triple group with campy scirocco wheels right? I'm not planning on using heavy components from the '80s...

This bike is going to be ridden as a commuter during the week, and maybe some stuff on weekends, depending on my schedule next year.

i wouldn't really put STis and ergo power shifters in the category of "technological advances." it's just a different, MORE EXPENSIVE, way of doing something that was being done quite well all along, in most cases BETTER. shifter/lever popularity can be chalked up to hype and laziness in my opinion.

anyway, i can tell the difference between 853 and 531, and i'm not a professional racer. i can tell the difference between a columbus frame and a reynolds frame just by listening to the ping it makes when i flick it with my finger. what does all of this mean? absolutely nothing!!

if you're not racing professionally, you don't NEED the latest and greatest in weight-saving technology. you need a bike that FUNCTIONS the way it's supposed to function. and one that you're comfortable on.

that said, i ride a lugged steel pinarello from the 80's, which feels SO much better than any aluminum bike i've ever ridden, and looks classier than any modern mass-produced road bike.

Phat,

only problem you may have with new components on your Older frame is the drop out spacing at the rear. older frames used 126mm spacing. Newer frames are 130mm.

May not sound like much but theres enough additional preload on the hub bearings to cause premature wear. YOu may need to widen the rear stays.

For the purposes you going to use the bike it more than adequate, In fact I'd like Veloce on my commuter! I've got a mix and match of Shimano from the late 80's and early 90's on mine.

Well, it's ALSO my 'fun' bike too:)

Go son and have fun

2. I merely pointed out that frame design has not changed, only materials and tubes have changed.

Ummm, ok so the dimensions have stayed the same, everything else has changed. Discounting construction methods and material in a frame is rather silly don't you think?


3. I also pointed out that a slightly lighter "modern" frame would not significantly improve the average riders performance in a measureable way.

Define average rider? We see threads all the time here where somebody bought a bike that was 3-4-5lbs lighter and noticed a fairly nice increase in average speeds, anywhere from 2-3-4mph, that's measurable in my book.


4. I also agree that good, new frames are available at reasonable prices. But I disagree that one needs to buy one in order to keep out on the club ride.

I agree, ride what you got and be happy, but don't dismiss something new as total junk and marketing hype either.


Back to the original posted question: does a 20 year old steel frameset hold back a rider? Assuming it's a quality butted frameset then the answer is obviously "No." If you don't believe me, then consider what difference a 3 lb weight difference would mean. A typical 175 lb rider on a 23 lb bike weighs a total of 198 lbs. Put the same rider on a "modern" 20 lb bike, the total is 195 lbs. That's a 1.5% difference. That is insignificant. If this same rider were getting dropped at 198, he'll still get dropped at 195. Now if he looses 20 lbs off the engine, he'll kick butt on either bike.

There are a lot of people that put to much emphasis on bike weight, but it is still important...to a point. Bike weight and rider weight don't run at a 1:1 ratio as well, if I remember correctly for every 1lb dropped off the bike it's the same as losing 3lbs from the rider. It works a bit the same as losing weight from wheels and rotational pieces, the dynamics involved are different.

For a simple test, go ride a 20lb bike with a full camelback, then go ride a 30lb bike without the camelback and tell us which felt different.


And please don't come back with that tired arguement about frame flex. A metallic frame is a near perfect spring and any energy put into flexing the frame comes back out with very little damping. As a mechical engineer you should know that. That's why cars have shock absorbers (dampers)--otherwise they would bounce continuously.

And simple physics tells us that when energy is "wasted" making the frame flex it means less energy is going to the wheels and ground, the back and forth motion of your frame flex is wasted energy. This has absolutely zero relation or corelation to shock absorbers on a car.


who is disgusted with all the hype that "you gotta have the latest or you aint sh_t"--it's the legs, not the bike or the mouth.

I have to agree to a point, but it's all a system that all has to work together. If you are in perfect physical shape then a 60lb cruiser bike really isn't going to do you any favors on your club ride. On the other hand if you are big and still overweight like me, then spending $7k for the latest 14lb super bike is rather wasted as well.

Andrew
Who rides a 10-12yr old steel bike that flexes quite a bit