Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - LD Frame Materials

I did a flat century a week or so ago, on an old school bike -- lugged steel, downtube shifters, 700 x 23c tires (@ 110 psi), somewhat aggressive geometry. Unfortunately the components are kind of crappy, so among other things the indexing went out right before the ride, and the bottom bracket started creaking awfully about 40 miles into it. And, of course, I got a flat. :mad:

Despite all that, I did finish the ride and felt like I could go another 20 miles.

I'm now considering a new bike, and I pretty much know what I want with one exception -- frame material. Since I plan to use this for 70+ mile group rides, centuries, and perhaps even ultra rides, I'm curious if there is a consensus on frame material, or if it barely makes a difference for 100+ mile rides.

I think a lighter bike makes more of a difference the longer you go, if you're not carrying a lot and can afford it a newer road/race bike made from light weight materials can make a big difference. I love my Ti frame, I know it should last a lifetime no matter what the weather or if I have the occasional tumble.

I prefer steel. I might consider Ti as well, but steel is just fine with me.

Steel is comfortable, and it also travels well.

I think you'll notice a bigger difference with changes in tire size than frame material. Try a 25 mm or 28 if you can fit it.

If I had $$$ I'd chose ti. Steel is more durable than carbon. Carbon tends to be the lightest but not by much. Overall, steel offers the best bang for the buck. What's more important though is to find a bike that fits you.

I actually think it's fairly unimportant. If you can find the fit, geometry, braze-ons, tire/fender clearance etc. that you want, I'd buy it, regardless of frame material. As Hocam mentions, ride comfort is determined almost completely by the tires, so if comfort is primary, look for a bike that can handle 28+mm tires.

Anyway, the short version of frame materials is something like this:

Steel pros -- pleasant ride, repairable, can be inexpensive unless you're buying handmade/artisan, wide selection of geometries/braze-ons/etc.

Steel cons -- usually relatively heavy, rusts.


Aluminum pros -- fairly light, often inexpensive, corrosion is an almost non-existent problem.

Aluminum cons -- lifespan probably more limited than other materials, ride can be harsh/buzzy, failure mode is "catastrophic" ie. you don't usually get any warning before it goes.


Carbon pros -- light, comfortable.

Carbon cons -- Limited geometries, "braze-ons", etc., generally not repairable, may be susceptible to damage.


Titanium pros -- light, nearly indestructable, often offers delightful ride quality.

Titanium cons -- well, I can't think of much.

I personally ride steel because I'm a cranky old fart, I like the appearance of lugged bikes, and they come in such a wide variety that it's usually possible to get exactly what you want. But to be perfectly candid, I believe that titanium is the closest to perfection of all frame materials.

HTH!

I personally ride steel because I'm a cranky old fart, I like the appearance of lugged bikes, and they come in such a wide variety that it's usually possible to get exactly what you want. But to be perfectly candid, I believe that titanium is the closest to perfection of all frame materials.

HTH!

I'm a cranky old fart stuck in a kids body, so I ride steel too. Although, if I had the bank account of a cranky old fart I might be on a Ti bike.

My bikes aluminiumed framed with carbon seat stays and a part carbon fork (steerer is aluminium). With 23c tires at about 115 PSI front and back, I find it very comfortable for long rides. I never really feel excessive vibration except for on really bad surfaces or cobbles...

I also have done approaching a thousand miles on an old steel framed rahleigh road bike which gives me a point of reference.

Hrm. I'm guessing that there is not a solid consensus for one material over another. ;)

So, let's go to an extreme here, and say I pick up a Cervelo Soloist Team -- aluminum frame with carbon forks, fairly aggressive geometry, designed for road racing and TT's.

- ride feel / road shock can be moderated by using 25c's or even 28c's @ 100 psi (depending on what fits)
- using 25c or bigger at 100psi may have a small performance penalty, but this can be totally ignored for non-racers
- upper body comfort (i.e. shoulders, upper arms) will be affected by the position -- reach, handlebar height and so forth

In other words, geometry will not affect road feel / road shock but will influence positional comfort and handling / steering.

I also assume that if the manufacturer happens to utilize a compact geometry and does not offer many sizes, there's a good chance it simply won't fit properly and won't feel right. If that bike does happen to fit, then the issue is essentially aesthetic.

Hrm. I'm guessing that there is not a solid consensus for one material over another. ;)
Hey, Mr. Understatement. :)


- ride feel / road shock can be moderated by using 25c's or even 28c's @ 100 psi (depending on what fits)

Yes, or even lower pressure. Ninety psi is not too low for a 28, if road conditions are poor. Be aware, though, that the odds of being able to fit a 28 on a bike like the Soloist are slim.


- using 25c or bigger at 100psi may have a small performance penalty, but this can be totally ignored for non-racers

A lot of attention has been paid to wide tires over the last few years, and it looks as though rolling resistance actually decreases with a wider tire, all other factors (construction, tread thickness, etc.) being the same. Some people say that wider tires are less aerodynamic -- which I think is a bit silly -- so IMO, the only performance handicap presented by wider tires is weight, which matters very much to constantly accelerating and decelerating racers, and perhaps less to the average "plod around at a steady speed all day and all night" LD rider.


- upper body comfort (i.e. shoulders, upper arms) will be affected by the position -- reach, handlebar height and so forth

Absolutely -- but everyone is different, so... I no longer care for my old racing position. In fact, I can hardly believe that I used to put in seven hour days that way. Other people still do just fine in a deep aero tuck, even for double centuries and brevets. YMMV, essentially.


In other words, geometry will not affect road feel / road shock but will influence positional comfort and handling / steering.
Pretty much. Geometry does have a small effect on road feel/shock, but one that is completely overwhelmed by things like tire selection. Handling, IMO, can be an overlooked matter. I find it quite fatiguing to spend the day holding the reigns of a nervous, ill-mannered bicycle -- which, IMO, defines the typical performance bicycle these days. I personally want a bike that goes straight unless I give it firm instructions not to, which is one of the reasons I ride steel: relaxed, pleasant handling steel frames are still pretty easy to find, while the same cannot be said for carbon and, to a lesser degree, titanium. (I have taken long hard looks at titanium cyclocross frames on several occasions. Most of these come very close to being ideal LD bikes, for me at least.)


I also assume that if the manufacturer happens to utilize a compact geometry and does not offer many sizes, there's a good chance it simply won't fit properly and won't feel right. If that bike does happen to fit, then the issue is essentially aesthetic.

My personal opinion is that compact geometry, usually going hand-in-hand with limited sizes ("Just extend the seatpost another seven inches!") is a perfectly transparent scam to save money for the manufacturers. If you happen to find one that fits and is otherwise pleasing to you, then grab it, of course. But to me the whole deal is analogous to going to the shoe store, discovering that there are only three sizes of shoes available, and being told that it's better that way because they'll shove some newspapers into the toe to get a "custom fit".

Grump, grump...

I think you'll notice a bigger difference with changes in tire size than frame material. Try a 25 mm or 28 if you can fit it.

I find that this is also up to preference, I feel a lot better on 20mm tires than 25s, I found the 25s to feel sluggish. But this also depends on the make of the tire, the bike itself, and of course you. I'm a very light rider so I find things are usually different for me than someone of regular or more weight. If I could only spend a lot on one part of the bike it would probably be on tires.

I can't quite make a perfect comparison -but FWIW - I just swapped all my components over from my titanium frame (Merlin Extralight) to a new steel frame. There is a weight differential - but not too much - the frame was only about 1/3 pound difference (the steel frame is 3.1 pounds in a size 59cm)and even tho it is a new model from R&E Cycle here in Seattle, it allows me to run 700x28 tires and full fenders. I did gain some weight in the larger fork. I took it out for a first ride this morning and did a usual 40 mile circuit with a 10.2 mile interval on rolling course. Again, not a true comparison because I ran the Conti 28's, and had large saddle bag with my winter gear in it. At most tho I est a 2lb difference between old bike set-up on titanium and this new ride on steel 17 lbs vs, 19). For the same course and virtually the same power output (I averaged 275 watts for the 10.2 miles in both cases) I was a minute slower today (28:56) than a previous effort on titanium with Michelin 23's. It will be interesting to see what the result is when I run my Michelin Pro 2 race 23's - which I can do and is one of the key reasons I got this frame so I could go back and forth between "racing" tires and "winter tires". The good news - the ride was fantastic - attributable to the 28's I am sure but I have to say I felt no loss from titanium to steel and even on some fairly steep short hills I had plenty of snap - altho I did notice the weight. I have a 115 mile hill climb ride this Sunday (with around 5K of climbing) and apparently there are some rough sections of road so it will be a good test and I think I will be glad to have the larger tires. I agree with the other posts about the ability to run these larger tires - having the flexibility is terrific option. I have a "feeling" that the ability to soak up vibration will make the longer efforts more enjoyable and may allow me to produce couple more watts per hour to offset any weight disadvantage.

If you're looking at Ultras and other distance, the Euromesh seat pretty much gives a great ride no matter what frame material your Bacchetta (http://www.bacchettabikes.com) is made of. :)

Yeah, but he was asking about bicycles, so... :p

Yeah, but he was asking about bicycles, so... :p

Sorry I was focusing on the ultra and distance parts, figured he was wanting to do it comfortably with only his legs hurting at the end. :) Bicycle by definition is 2 wheels with human power, and UCI doesn't sanction anything other than drafting races. :p It's all about being comfortably aero. :)

I did a 67 mile ride yesterday on brand new 33.3mm tires over all kinds of pavement and some gravel and it was noticably more comfortable than the 27's I had been riding. If there was performance penalty to be paid I couldn't tell.

But as it relates to frame material; a lot of aluminum and CF bikes are not built with clearance for decent size tires. It's possible, but not many are so you really have to shop around. With large diameter aluminum bikes it gets especially tough; too much stuff needs to happen in the area behind the bottom bracket.

I'm seling my touring bike to finance the purchase of a cyclocross bike. The touring bike was of course prety relaxed geometry and steel, the cyclocross bike will be aluminum with a carbon fork. I will use the cross bike for some longer distances, since I can only afford one bike of relative expense. I'm also going to be converting an old bridgestone hybrid to a sort of town bike/tourer, probably with drop bars. If I can't take the cross bike, I'll use that one, though the weight penalty will probably be around 7-8 pounds:o

I don't do ultra distance by any means, but I'd like to start working some 200ks into my routine to get the "brevet experience" without all the pain:p

I can say that the steel touring bike is pretty comfortable over long rides. Interestingly, I keep favoring a slightly more aggressive position (more weight on hands). I attribute this to the fact that I can shift my hands all over the place while my butt basically stays put. Hard to say though, I'm stil a newbie.

Oh, and I was running 28s on the tourer, for the most part. But I did notice a big difference between Vittoria 28s and Continental Ultragatorskins. The latter cornered better, roled smother, flatted less, but were slightly less comfortable. I think their actual width is more like 26-27. Last weekend I did a 50 miler on 35 cyclocross tires (too lazy to change) and the lower PSI wa slike riding on a pillow. Slower, too, but that may have been the fault of the knobs.