Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - biased against steel?

I know there are a lot of people, fixed gear riders in particular, who prefer steel to aluminum or titanium...and not just for the price.

Does anyone on here actively NOT like steel?

I hate steel if it's part of an SUV.

Does that count?

I'm not biased against steel but as a newbie I definately notice that (and maybe Surly portrays this the most) if you are not into steel you are not "in the know."

yeah there does seem to be this "steel is cooler" kindof thing...personally, I agree...I do think steel is cooler but I"m not biased against aluminum or anything.

steel is real... dig it ?

jeff

Each have their benefits. Steel is regarded as the most comfortable, and dead easy to repair (and lugs are just cool); aluminum is lighter than steel, won't rust, but will break eventually (painfull); titanium is seemingly the best combination of the two, but more expensive than both put together. I have no real alligiance to any of them, but a lean towards steel on a cost versus longevity basis.

When I buy, I buy steel... but if anyone wants to give me Alumnium or Titanium - PM me for my address.

I know there are a lot of people, fixed gear riders in particular, who prefer steel to aluminum or titanium...and not just for the price.

Does anyone on here actively NOT like steel?

Part of the allure of fixed gear bikes is the connection with the older style of bike and the low cost of converting older steel bikes from the 60's-70's. That era produced some of the best handling and most beautiful bikes ever made. Lugged steel bikes can be repaired by anybody competent with a torch and have some of the best ride characteristics of any bikes ever produced. There have been some desirable bikes made of other materials, but to the steel lover, they lack soul. That, I'm sure, is in the eye of the beholder as I have seen some gorgeous bikes made of "different" methods and materials. I also think that the perceived vision of the independent craftsman toiling away in his Atelier, as opposed to the large mass production factory plays a part in the judgment.

fixedgearhead

I have to admit my favourite steel frame was actually welded and not lugged, but then I've never had a nice lugged frame so I guess that maybe where the difference comes. Oh and my nice aluminium frame gives as much comfort but is considerably stiffer than my somewhat noodly bad steel frame. So it all depends, I certainly love the look of lugged, but I've yet to be able to afford a decent steel frame where I can tell the benefits.

I just know that I prefer metal to carbon frames. Just my preference. These days, though, steel roadie frames are getting to be almost as light as ti or aluminum without sacrificing stiffness where you want it. My SS, MTB and roadie are all steel. The fixie is alu, just because it's my old road bike and still wanted me to ride it. It's really gotten to where the differences beween the weight of materials is almost negligable at the high end.

Steel is the least damaging to the environment to produce.
Steel is infinately recyclable (if it doens't rust into oblivion)
Steel is repairable.
I really like steel as a metal, in buildings and cars and bikes.
We should all use more steel.
Steel is good.

Long term exposure to aluminum, even by touching your frame etc, will drastically reduce the occurrence of coition.

Asking if anyone is against steel on a fixie/ss board is like asking if anyone dislikes carbon on the roadie board.

Part of the ethos of riding fixed or singlespeed is basic, fundamnetal, retrospective etc. That usually means steel as it's the oldest and most refined building material, and fits the ideaology. Titanium is tollerated because, well, it just rocks and kind of looks like steel that someone forgot to paint, but Aluminium frankly reminds us of the slab of beer we drank last night.

Initially satisfying, but eventually crumpled up in our recycling bin and us feeling like sh1t.

Asking if anyone is against steel on a fixie/ss board is like asking if anyone dislikes carbon on the roadie board.

Part of the ethos of riding fixed or singlespeed is basic, fundamnetal, retrospective etc. That usually means steel as it's the oldest and most refined building material, and fits the ideaology. Titanium is tollerated because, well, it just rocks and kind of looks like steel that someone forgot to paint, but Aluminium frankly reminds us of the slab of beer we drank last night.

Initially satisfying, but eventually crumpled up in our recycling bin and us feeling like sh1t.

AL hater. ;)

You can't chrome aluminum.

your answer seems to be........................................................................ NO!

somebody posted a querry asking if his Alu frame was toast because it fell over onto a granite boulder.
Ugly cuts right into the metal, and this is not a metal that can stand X-stress if compromised.
Ugggh..poor guy. Alu I think is fine in FS bikes. Traditional frame builds minus suspension-no.

Unless you have a minimal budget, no bike, then shure.......I guess.................NOT. :D

I was talking with a guy from a LBS yesterday and he mentioned how steel is getting better and better, partially due to the steel but also because lugs are getting welded better. I don't claim to know a lot of this personally, but it seems to make sense. Steel seems more sturdy for the city, or at least 165 has done a good job brainwashing me into believing that. You have to watch that guy... He's sneaky. ;)

I just purchased an unused Italian made steal lugged frame from circa 1990 for my fixie commuter/fun ride. It's a road frame but it's a beauty and I cannot wait to get her rigged up fixed. My road bike is an Al/Carbon combo and she is my racer and race she does... so, bias? I don't know. Just use what's out there you know? ...

Actually, the swingarm of my FS bike, as well as 2 trials bikes I've done in the past are Nickel coated Aluminium. "How does he do it?" I hear you say.

"Bugger off" comes the reply. "It's a secret".

I know there are a lot of people, fixed gear riders in particular, who prefer steel to aluminum or titanium...and not just for the price.

Does anyone on here actively NOT like steel?

well, steel is the best material for fixed gear bikes due to the rear spacing needed. the dropouts can be positioned well on a steel bike.

I know there are a lot of people, fixed gear riders in particular, who prefer steel to aluminum or titanium...and not just for the price.

Does anyone on here actively NOT like steel?

I cherish my old vintage columbus frame bike because I rode my first (and only :o ) races on it years ago and could only swear by steel frame till.... I the exact size of my old steel one, the frame is aluminium.. and I love it. But I can't give up my old bike, it's called nostalgia..

My old 70's steel frame is so much more comfortable than my modern aluminum frame bike that it isnt even funny.

I used to ride a 3-speed Triumph All-Steel bike. It was called "all steel" not because other bikes were made of carbon Ti or Al, but because the bottom bracket lug was steel rather than cast iron.

Lugs?..not for me, too heavy (look nice).
I just stripped a Ritchey to metal, the welds are so fine-pure craftmanship.
Most MTB now are huge alu tubed bikes with weld beads the size of rope you use to ty up your boat. Ugly...though probably strong. Guess robots have little sense of asthetics.

Asking a fixed rider if they don't like steel is like asking a man if he doesn't like receiving oral sex.

Let the love fest continue.

I remember reading this article in bicycling or mountain bike back in the mid-nineties. It was their run down of new frame materials and which was best. There was Alu, Carbon, Ti and Boron (who has a bike made of Boron?) There was this side bar about this new high-tech material that was cheap, reasonably light, reasonably stiff, had awesome shock absorption and didn't fatigue over time. It was steel. The whole premise of the story (refreshing for a bike mag) was that if people hadn't been making bikes out of steel since the beginning of time, it would be the hot new thing.

Steel is, in a word, awesome.

You can't chrome aluminum.

But you can polish it.

steel and ti are good... aluminum and carbon = bad!!!!!!!!

steel and ti are good... aluminum and carbon = bad!!!!!!!!

I just love replies like this. It shows much forethought and in-depth analysis.

Each material properly applied can produce good bikes.

Lugs?..not for me, too heavy (look nice).
I just stripped a Ritchey to metal, the welds are so fine-pure craftmanship.
Most MTB now are huge alu tubed bikes with weld beads the size of rope you use to ty up your boat. Ugly...though probably strong. Guess robots have little sense of asthetics.

I don't know about that though. I've seen some pretty nice Al welds... okay so they were machined after welding. I've also seen some nice welds on steel frames and those were robotic welds. I do agree that a majority of Al frames tend to have ugly looking welds. As far as lugs are concerned, didn't Grant Petersen write a long article about how he thought stamped lugs were superior to welded lugs?

I just love replies like this. It shows much forethought and in-depth analysis.

Each material properly applied can produce good bikes.


i like them because the have elasticity. that's something that any metal that will last should have. and i like things to last.

i like them because the have elasticity. that's something that any metal that will last should have. and i like things to last.

Material properties by themselves are totally meaningless unless you combine them with design and shape. With all the materials mentioned, it is possible to design a bike that mimics bikes made of any of the other materials in ride quality and durability. When you ride a bike, you're not riding a piece of raw metal. You're riding something that has been designed into a specific shape. This shape more than anything else will determine the ride quality as well as its ability to withstand punishment.

Material properties by themselves are totally meaningless unless you combine them with design and shape. With all the materials mentioned, it is possible to design a bike that mimics bikes made of any of the other materials in ride quality and durability. When you ride a bike, you're not riding a piece of raw metal. You're riding something that has been designed into a specific shape. This shape more than anything else will determine the ride quality as well as its ability to withstand punishment.


I remember when Al frames came out and were considered too soft. This was before the big tube/thin wall Al bikes like Klien and Cannondale. The design is everthing!!!

I remember when Al frames came out and were considered too soft. This was before the big tube/thin wall Al bikes like Klien and Cannondale. The design is everthing!!!

Yep. The first Al frames I ever tried were the Trek 8000s back in 1990. They felt quite noodlely during climbing. I was in the market to buy a bike that day and ended up with a 4130 steel bike... it was a Nishiki Ariel. It was stiffer where it counted (up near the front... gussetted top-tube/head-tube junction) and compliant where it needed to be. I liked the fact that the e-stays flexed a little for that "suspension" effect. I actually would have liked to have been able to afford the AlienACX with the mocoque Al main triangle and the 4130 steel e-stays with straight bladed steel forks but I was just a poor college student.

So far, I have only owned AL bikes for XC, roadie SS, and trials. However, whenever I get on my friends' GOOD steel bikes, the balance just seems different. Trackstanding is almost effortless and the bike just seems to do exactly what you want it to. Part of this is obviously dependent on your stem/bars/saddle geometry and perhaps, mine are all off. But maybe high quality steel frames just have a more natural weight distribution than AL frames.

I will hopefully soon be getting an RB-1 frame to be built up as an SS/fixie comuter.

steel and ti are good... aluminum and carbon = bad!!!!!!!!

I love my road racer which is AL and Carbon HA HA thankyou very much ;) I don't contend with any of the stereotypical attributes ie AL is Harsh BS! I admit I did a lot of research till my eyes hurt and the far majority where steel jockies downplaying new technology in AL and Carbon. Finally I decided to test it myself and this bike rides far better then my old steel bike. Having said that I am currently looking very much forward togetting my lugged columbus thron frame in the mail hopefully this week for my fixie commuter/fun bike. I use all thes materials for what they have to offer. Don't be close minded or you'll never know.


I don't know about that though. I've seen some pretty nice Al welds... okay so they were machined after welding. I've also seen some nice welds on steel frames and those were robotic welds. I do agree that a majority of Al frames tend to have ugly looking welds. As far as lugs are concerned, didn't Grant Petersen write a long article about how he thought stamped lugs were superior to welded lugs?

So true, Look at Derosa AL welded frames and tell me they are'nt the most beautiful thing you've ever seen. Then look at a Merlin Ti weld. Merlin likes to see the welds Derosa does'nt, it's purely cosmetics. btw in my studies I've found that people claim that lugged frames are not heavier then welds b/c the tubes can be butted lighter. Don't know if it's true but I've read about it.

to you who tout design. a good design should be based on a good metal, no? and why do i always hear about aluminum and carbon breaking? why does khs have a 25 year warranty on its steel bikes and a 5 year warranty on its aluminum? riddle me that. a nice bike should last IMO. even if it isn't your best bike anymore it can become a very nice beater.

to you who tout design. a good design should be based on a good metal, no? and why do i always hear about aluminum and carbon breaking? why does khs have a 25 year warranty on its steel bikes and a 5 year warranty on its aluminum? riddle me that. a nice bike should last IMO. even if it isn't your best bike anymore it can become a very nice beater.

But in the end it's all about the design. A good design is not based on a good metal. The metal is an ingrediant. A design starts with the requirements. Figure out what you want your design to do. Construct a geometry that supports those requirements. Do you want the rear end to be a little flexy or very stiff? Do you want the bike to be a tandem or a single or a unicycle? Do you want it to be able to be broken down via S+S connectors? Are you looking to design a short or long toptube with respect to the seat tube? etc... etc... Now that you've got the basics of the design, you need to choose the material that will give you the appropriate attribute in that section of the frame to support your design. In many cases, the material choice is actually last but this is an interative process. I will gurantee you that anyone who says "I'm just going to build a bike out of X material because X material is the best" without considering the requirements first is really little more than a materials bigot/zealot.

As far as a company standing behind its products... My carbon roadbike has a lifetime warranty on the frame. Not only that, it also has a lifetime crash replacement warranty whereby if you crash, you can send the frame back to them for repair or replacement. If they can fix it, they will. If they can't, they'll offer a replacement at a subtantial discount. I've never had to have the frame replaced but testimonials place the discount at better than 50%. Don't judge all bikes that use the same material the same. Don't judge all bike companies that use the same material the same. If all bikes of the same material were homogenous in performance, durability, etc then there would be only one manufacturer and everyone would be riding the same exact bike.

My AL/Carbon roadie also has lifetime warrenty and crash replacement, now that's confidence...

Merton I think you always hear about al/carbon problems b/c for some reason it is a popular topic? I am guessing a bit here but there seems to be a powerful old school contingent bent on 'steel is real' ect... I cannot remember the article I read once I may try to find it but it was about a testing system that some engineer designed where they mounted a bike by its bottom bracket in a machine that had arms attached to the crank. esentially the arms would but force on the cranks in a back and forth motion for thousands of repitions trying to break it. The result came out such that the AL bike took the most abuse. I believe it was a Cannondale. A lugged Derosa broke before the al cdale. But it is also important to point out that in either case the test whent way past anything that you could call normal wear and tear.

anyone else ever hear of this test?

I cannot remember the article I read once I may try to find it but it was about a testing system that some engineer designed where they mounted a bike by its bottom bracket in a machine that had arms attached to the crank. esentially the arms would but force on the cranks in a back and forth motion for thousands of repitions trying to break it. The result came out such that the AL bike took the most abuse. I believe it was a Cannondale. A lugged Derosa broke before the al cdale. But it is also important to point out that in either case the test whent way past anything that you could call normal wear and tear.

anyone else ever hear of this test?

Are you thinking of EFBe (http://www.efbe.de/defbefrm.htm) tests?

Also, the Univ. of Maine did tests on several bikes (CF though) and focused a lot on Aegis. Their results can be found on the bottom of Aegis' website concerning their engineering principles (http://www.aegisbicycles.com/lo/engineering.html).

to you who tout design. a good design should be based on a good metal, no? and why do i always hear about aluminum and carbon breaking? why does khs have a 25 year warranty on its steel bikes and a 5 year warranty on its aluminum? riddle me that. a nice bike should last IMO. even if it isn't your best bike anymore it can become a very nice beater.

What, you don't want a new bike every 5 years or something? :) :) :p

But in the end it's all about the design. A good design is not based on a good metal. The metal is an ingrediant.

did you even read what ya just typed? if i want the rear to be a little flexy i'll probably want a metal that has some elasticity to it... aluminum doesn't have that as far as i know.

and maybe i should give carbon more credit. i just don't like straight aluminum. an MMC is okay though.

Are you thinking of EFBe (http://www.efbe.de/defbefrm.htm) tests?

Also, the Univ. of Maine did tests on several bikes (CF though) and focused a lot on Aegis. Their results can be found on the bottom of Aegis' website concerning their engineering principles (http://www.aegisbicycles.com/lo/engineering.html).
Yes thank you that is the test I was refering to.

did you even read what ya just typed? if i want the rear to be a little flexy i'll probably want a metal that has some elasticity to it... aluminum doesn't have that as far as i know.

I recently test road one of the new Cannondales with their "specially shaped seatstays" and I can tell you that they've managed to make an Al rear that is flexy. At anyrate, I'm not trying to say Al is the best material or that steel is the best or CF is the best. I'm actually trying to debunk the myth that the material is the most important thing in determining the characteristics of the frame.



and maybe i should give carbon more credit. i just don't like straight aluminum. an MMC is okay though.

Again, you have defined a solution without defining a scope. In any engineering exercise, you must first define the scope.

Are you thinking of EFBe (http://www.efbe.de/defbefrm.htm) tests?

Also, the Univ. of Maine did tests on several bikes (CF though) and focused a lot on Aegis. Their results can be found on the bottom of Aegis' website concerning their engineering principles (http://www.aegisbicycles.com/lo/engineering.html).

I dont' get it. The frame deflects 0.8 inches for 100lbs ? Obviously they are not referring to the frame as a whole, but probably for a cantilever made of carbon (if so what length?). This test is (almost) meaningless, since the deflection does not shed any light on what happens when a bunch of tubes are formed into a diamond structure. A truss is perhaps the most rigid structure you can build given a set of tubes. Unless they post displacement numbers for actual frames no reasonable conclusion can be drawn. I suspect the difference is going to be so little at the rear stay that it is irrelevent. The literature looks like marketing BS to mislead the gullible types. I wish I have the time and patience to create a finite element model of a frame with different materials. On a different note, fork material does make a big difference in determining comfort/shock absorption, for a simple reason that it is a cantilever under load which is conducive for deformation.

I dont' get it. The frame deflects 0.8 inches for 100lbs ? Obviously they are not referring to the frame as a whole, but probably for a cantilever made of carbon (if so what length?). This test is (almost) meaningless, since the deflection does not shed any light on what happens when a bunch of tubes are formed into a diamond structure. A truss is perhaps the most rigid structure you can build given a set of tubes. Unless they post displacement numbers for actual frames no reasonable conclusion can be drawn. I suspect the difference is going to be so little at the rear stay that it is irrelevent. The literature looks like marketing BS to mislead the gullible types. I wish I have the time and patience to create a finite element model of a frame with different materials. On a different note, fork material does make a big difference in determining comfort/shock absorption, for a simple reason that it is a cantilever under load which is conducive for deformation.

I believe the testing measured deflection at the BB. At least that seems to be where all the strain gages have been positioned. I wish I could find a more detailed set of results for the work they did.

http://www.umeme.maine.edu/design/Projects%201997-1998/AEGIS/aegis_1997_page_3.htm

Hmmm... it looks subsequent tests were done with other types of sensors than strain gages. It seems piezo sensors were used for dynamic testing.

http://www.umeme.maine.edu/studentdesign/Projects_1998_1999/Aegis_Sensor/index.htm

to you who tout design. a good design should be based on a good metal, no? and why do i always hear about aluminum and carbon breaking? why does khs have a 25 year warranty on its steel bikes and a 5 year warranty on its aluminum? riddle me that. a nice bike should last IMO. even if it isn't your best bike anymore it can become a very nice beater.

blah, why does hyundai offer 100,000 miles warranties? who fricking knows

Hmmm... it looks subsequent tests were done with other types of sensors than strain gages. It seems piezo sensors were used for dynamic testing.

http://www.umeme.maine.edu/studentdesign/Projects_1998_1999/Aegis_Sensor/index.htm

Thanks for the info. I went through the website, there does not seem to be much information. Am I missing something? It is not clear what the objectives are and what they concluded. Did they publish a paper? It looks like they did not complete the tests, or continued them to a point where the results have relevence to the bicycling community.

I believe the testing measured deflection at the BB. At least that seems to be where all the strain gages have been positioned. I wish I could find a more detailed set of results for the work they did.

http://www.umeme.maine.edu/design/Projects%201997-1998/AEGIS/aegis_1997_page_3.htm

Do you think there is so much deflection at the BB? A 200lb guy inducing close to 2 inch deformation is hard to believe. That is like having (roughly) 2 inch suspension on a road bike. Besides the pedal will touch the ground too often during cornering. Nah.