Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area - Use of steel track bikes in current races?

I am new to track cycling (just got started) and am using bikes provided by the facility I ride at for now. However, I am curious about the use of steel track bikes in competition. It seems all the guys ride carbon or aluminum aero bikes (as has been stated in the archives) which are fine, but I love the look of a classic steel track frame.

I want to invest in a custom track bike, and want something functional, not just pretty to look at. So my question relates to:

A) Are there real performance benefits to the aluminum frames vs. the steel frames?
B) Does anyone still race using the steel frames, or has this become the strict domain of the "fixie" crowd (who most do not know even what NJS stands for).

C) Or are steel frames used mostly for endurance events if used at all?

If it comes down to a performance issue, I will opt for going with a Tiemeyer custom. Maybe a compromise would be an aero-Yamaguchi. However, I have had my sights on a custom, round tubed classic track frame, if I can race competitively without too a competitive disadvantage.

Thanks in advance.

Note - I checked the archives, but would like to get some feedback in terms of the specific questions I have asked above.

I am new to track cycling (just got started) and am using bikes provided by the facility I ride at for now. However, I am curious about the use of steel track bikes in competition. It seems all the guys ride carbon or aluminum aero bikes (as has been stated in the archives) which are fine, but I love the look of a classic steel track frame.

I want to invest in a custom track bike, and want something functional, not just pretty to look at. So my question relates to:

A) Are there real performance benefits to the aluminum frames vs. the steel frames?
B) Does anyone still race using the steel frames, or has this become the strict domain of the "fixie" crowd (who most do not know even what NJS stands for).

C) Or are steel frames used mostly for endurance events if used at all?

If it comes down to a performance issue, I will opt for going with a Tiemeyer custom. Maybe a compromise would be an aero-Yamaguchi. However, I have had my sights on a custom, round tubed classic track frame, if I can race competitively without too a competitive disadvantage.

Thanks in advance.

Note - I checked the archives, but would like to get some feedback in terms of the specific questions I have asked above.

A) Are there real performance benefits to the aluminum frames vs. the steel frames?

Yes. Aluminum is going to be stiffer than a steel bike of the same weight. A stiffer frame transfers your power through the bike more efficiently by not flexing as much.


B) Does anyone still race using the steel frames, or has this become the strict domain of the "fixie" crowd (who most do not know even what NJS stands for).

Yes, every day! There are plenty of racers that kick butt daily on steel frames. It's a personal thing. Most of the steel frames that I've seen are the budget bikes like the Fuji Track or Bianchi Pista. But, people often upgrade from those to mid-range aluminum or high-end aluminum or carbon frames. The "engine" is more of a factor of a person's success than the bike and equipment. That being said, better equipment is better and will help you ensure that you are getting the most for the output that your engine is providing. As with any sport that requires equipment, there is a tipping point between "worth it" and not "worth it". It may not be worth it for a local racer to go from a $450 Fuji Track to invest in a $4,000 Felt TK1 frame and then outfit it with another few thousand in components. But, it may be well worth it for him/her to invest in a bike like a Felt TK2 or Trek T1. I guess it's an example of the law of diminishing returns :)

C) Or are steel frames used mostly for endurance events if used at all?

By the time anyone decides to specialize in endurance or sprint events, they have probably decided to upgrade to a lighter and stiffer frame.

By the way, these are just my observations. I'm sure that there are other points of view on this. For example, I've seen Dan Holt (current Elite US National Points Race Champ) race on a $450 fuji track that he borrowed from the kids program along with some MTB shoes and cleats and kick butt all night long with just a 48x15 gear. He won his national championship on an older mid-range Fuji Track Pro (black/white around 2007 model) and some borrowed wheels. He beat guys that were racing bikes that cost more than his car :)

So, yeah, steel is totally acceptable. If it gets you excited and makes you ride your bike more, then go for it. But, I would venture to guess that the right aluminum or carbon frame would serve you better. I mean, yes, there is a difference and people who know much more than you and I have also made the switch from steel to AL or Carbon Fiber.

For example, there is a guy that is a Cat 2 that races at DLV in Atlanta races on this every week and kicks butt:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/4778593581_24e1473538_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/twotone666/4778593581/in/photostream/)

But, I'm trying to convince him to get a lighter bike...if I can ever catch him to tell him! hahaha :)


EDIT:
This is the same bike that was featured at the 2009 NHMBS:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3327636844_a6afb39ccc_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/twotone666/3327636844/in/set-72157614791202590/)

I think there are some Sacto trackies who make the trek down to Hellyer and race on Steve Rex customs. If we ever get a velodrome here in town, that's what I'd want to get.

Here just about every one is on steel. The track is rougher than most roads, so the Al is a little too unforgiving.

Aluminum is NOT inherently stiffer than steel. In fact the modular ratio (stiffness / weight) of steel is about the same as aluminum. The reason typical aluminum frames are lighter and stiffer than typical steel frames is that aluminum frames typically use larger diameter tubing than steel frames. The stiffness of a thin walled tube is proportional to the cube of the diameter, however, the weight is directly proportional to the diameter. So, doubling the diameter of a tube will double the weight, but increase the stiffness eightfold. Since aluminum weighs only about 1/3 as much as steel, but steel is about 3 times as stiff, an aluminum tube that is twice the diameter of a steel tube will be both stiffer and lighter than the smaller diameter steel tube. Since the thickness of the aluminum tube will increase somewhat, the improvements won't be quite as dramatic as would be the case if the thickness remained unchanged.

It is possible to build a steel frame that is competitive in the stiffness and weight to aluminum frames through the use of oversize and specially shaped steel tubing, but the inexpensive mass production of reliable and durable aluminum frames has relegated steel to the low end market or limited njs market that is dictated by Japanese pro keirin regulations. I own a vintage 1976 Schwinn Paramount P14 steel lugged framed track bike that I raced for 25 years and won races with it, but 5 years ago I replaced it with an aluminum frame / carbon fork Bianchi Pista Concept with carbon rimmed wheels that is much stiffer yet significantly lighter than my old Paramount and has definitely impacted my results in important events such as national championships. However, as Carleton pointed out, ultimately it's the engine that counts most, and there are guys I couldn't beat even if my bike weighed nothing at all and was infinitely stiff.

Hey guys,
thanks for all of the responses. As someone who is only 142 pounds, I am probably never going to be decent in most track cycling events, especially those requiring more pure power than power-to-weight ratio over extended periods of time. So it could also be that regardless for myself, I am never going to flex a frame all that much.

SO maybe go after the bike that in 30 years, I will still want to ride and keep in my garage.

Hey guys,
thanks for all of the responses. As someone who is only 142 pounds, I am probably never going to be decent in most track cycling events, especially those requiring more pure power than power-to-weight ratio over extended periods of time. So it could also be that regardless for myself, I am never going to flex a frame all that much.

SO maybe go after the bike that in 30 years, I will still want to ride and keep in my garage.

This is why you hit the weights or you can run different gear ratios.

As someone who is only 142 pounds, I am probably never going to be decent in most track cycling events

That can be remedied. GOMAD & gym-up. You'll have ridiculous quads in no time

Aluminum is NOT inherently stiffer than steel. In fact the modular ratio (stiffness / weight) of steel is about the same as aluminum.
Reading comprehension fail. He said an AL frame is stiffer as steel frame of the same weight.

Professional Keirin racers in Japan ALL use steel bikes.

Reading comprehension fail. He said an AL frame is stiffer as steel frame of the same weight.

Why don't you go back and carefully read the entirety of what I said. I was merely pointing out the fact that Carleton's statement was only true because steel frames are not made using oversized tubing the way modern aluminum frames are made. It is possible to build steel frames that have the same weight and stiffness of aluminum frames. Many people assume that aluminum is inherently superior, which is not the case.

Why don't you go back and carefully read the entirety of what I said. I was merely pointing out the fact that Carleton's statement was only true because steel frames are not made using oversized tubing the way modern aluminum frames are made. It is possible to build steel frames that have the same weight and stiffness of aluminum frames. Many people assume that aluminum is inherently superior, which is not the case.

So do they make steel tubing with these inherent qualities. My understanding is that because of the weight factor and the inability to shape steel tubes to the diameter of aluminum, you are unable to make a steel tubes to the same level of stiffness? However, given that steel is 3x as strong if the weight is equal, I would think you could make oversized steel tubes in the shape of oversized aluminum tubes with thinner walls than aluminum (or alternatively - I thought that if you were to design the same 1" diameter tubes, you would need to make the aluminum tubes 3x as thick to match the stiffness of the steel 1" tubes). This could all be completely wrong, so this is more in the form of a question than my attempting to debate anyone on this.

I still am curious however about the "performance benefit", hence why I am asking the questions in the first place. In other words, if weight is fairly equal (again - compared to an old Schwinn - modern steel bikes are much better), I am wondering whether those who have ridden both could really tell a difference in the ride, performance etc... with a more stiff alu frame vs. steel. As someone who is lighter weight, I doubt I could flex either.

There are a few custom framebuilders like Don Walker who are believers in steel frames, and have built them for national class riders such as junior sprint national champion Daniel Walker (no relation) http://www.donwalkercycles.com/frames/track/ I have never ridden one of his frames, but I did ride a custom steel frame with shaped non-round oversize steel tubing that was raced by a national champion woman sprinter Suzie Goodwin, and it felt every bit as stiff as my Bianchi Pista Concept and was about the same weight as well. I think it simply comes down to economics, such that manufacturers have decided to use aluminum rather than steel. The steel frames that I mentioned are very expensive, so it's difficult to justify the cost when a cheaper alternative is available.

The trouble with steel tubing in larger diameters is that the wall thickness becomes a limitation, where an AL tube of the same weight and diameter (and about the same rigidity) will have wall thickness 3X the steel tube. The typical accepted minimum ratio of diameter to thickness is 50:1, also called by some builders the "beer can ratio." Go much beyond the beer can ratio and the tube is prone to buckling.

This limits steel tubes to about 40mm diameter, and even that gets to be pig heavy at .8mm wall thickness. Typically the larger steel tubes in use are 32mm. I've seen 50mm tubes on production AL frames.

The beer can ratio can be pushed--I have a road frame with a 70:1 top tube (28.6mm tube, .4mm wall), but it's picked up a few dents. The 60:1 down tube on the same frame (30mm, .5mm) is so far dent free but it's not subject to as much denting hazard.

Thanks, Melville, for the insight.

The trouble with steel tubing in larger diameters is that the wall thickness becomes a limitation, where an AL tube of the same weight and diameter (and about the same rigidity) will have wall thickness 3X the steel tube. The typical accepted minimum ratio of diameter to thickness is 50:1, also called by some builders the "beer can ratio." Go much beyond the beer can ratio and the tube is prone to buckling.

This limits steel tubes to about 40mm diameter, and even that gets to be pig heavy at .8mm wall thickness. Typically the larger steel tubes in use are 32mm. I've seen 50mm tubes on production AL frames.

The beer can ratio can be pushed--I have a road frame with a 70:1 top tube (28.6mm tube, .4mm wall), but it's picked up a few dents. The 60:1 down tube on the same frame (30mm, .5mm) is so far dent free but it's not subject to as much denting hazard.


Yeah - thanks as well for this information.

The trouble with steel tubing in larger diameters is that the wall thickness becomes a limitation, where an AL tube of the same weight and diameter (and about the same rigidity) will have wall thickness 3X the steel tube. The typical accepted minimum ratio of diameter to thickness is 50:1, also called by some builders the "beer can ratio." Go much beyond the beer can ratio and the tube is prone to buckling.

This limits steel tubes to about 40mm diameter, and even that gets to be pig heavy at .8mm wall thickness. Typically the larger steel tubes in use are 32mm. I've seen 50mm tubes on production AL frames.

The beer can ratio can be pushed--I have a road frame with a 70:1 top tube (28.6mm tube, .4mm wall), but it's picked up a few dents. The 60:1 down tube on the same frame (30mm, .5mm) is so far dent free but it's not subject to as much denting hazard.

One question - since steel is technically 3x as dense as aluminum, wouldn't the beer can ratio be higher for steel than aluminum? (Obviously not - or there would be oversized steel tubes - but I am trying to understand why, if steel is denser, it cannot be built to an even smaller width than ALU.

One question - since steel is technically 3x as dense as aluminum, wouldn't the beer can ratio be higher for steel than aluminum? (Obviously not - or there would be oversized steel tubes - but I am trying to understand why, if steel is denser, it cannot be built to an even smaller width than ALU.

Beer can ratio is independent of material. Steel tubes are made thinner-walled than AL, and they reach their BCR limits at a much smaller diameter than AL.

Beer can ratio is independent of material. Steel tubes are made thinner-walled than AL, and they reach their BCR limits at a much smaller diameter than AL.

What you are talking about is a phenomenon known a thin shell buckling, and material DOES play a part in this. Buckling is both a function of geometric factors and the modulus of elesticity of the material, which for steel is 3 times higher than aluminum. The buckling stress point is directly proportional to the modulus of elasticity, so a thin walled steel tube can have a higher D/T ratio before it is subject to buckling. In addition, tubing can be shaped in ways to optimize the properties of a material. As for denting and whatnot, thin walled aluminum tubes are just as prone to this as steel ones. You only have to look at all the dinged and dented Bianchi Pista Concepts out there.

Steel is cool. I changed to a carbon frame from an NJS one year ago, but I'm not at all convinced it's what's made me faster. Ride what you like, you'll be happier.

Steel is cool. I changed to a carbon frame from an NJS one year ago, but I'm not at all convinced it's what's made me faster. Ride what you like, you'll be happier.

What do you notice about ride quality and overall feel of the bike?

I'd say the carbon bike (a Dolan) is marginally stiffer, and feels a tiny, tiny bit more responsive. But this could be down to the geometry. The Dolan's BB is 15mm higher than my Panasonic's. I'm also not a huge guy at around 80 kg, so for e bigger guy the difference in stiffness might be more noticeable.

I'd say the carbon bike (a Dolan) is marginally stiffer, and feels a tiny, tiny bit more responsive. But this could be down to the geometry. The Dolan's BB is 15mm higher than my Panasonic's. I'm also not a huge guy at around 80 kg, so for e bigger guy the difference in stiffness might be more noticeable.

This is true.

I'm around 110kg/245lbs. I had a 57cm 2005 Bianchi Pista (steel) then subsequently a Pista Concept (aluminum). Back then they had identical geometries. The very first thing I noticed was how little the the Concept flexed when climbing hills. It was lighter and stiffer. I'm sure that that flex diminishes as the frame sizes get smaller.

Yeah, I did get dings in the top tube of the Concept.

I'd say the carbon bike (a Dolan) is marginally stiffer, and feels a tiny, tiny bit more responsive. But this could be down to the geometry. The Dolan's BB is 15mm higher than my Panasonic's. I'm also not a huge guy at around 80 kg, so for e bigger guy the difference in stiffness might be more noticeable.

Actually, I'm rather surprised that you found your Dolan only marginally stiffer than your Panasonic. When I changed from my old Schwinn Paramount P14 steel bike, which is similar to an njs frame, to my Bianchi Pista Concept there was a very noticeable increase in stiffness. This was particularly noticeable to me when doing standing starts. I must say, though, that the Paramount is a lot smoother ride on tracks with rough surfaces.

Need to chew on all of this and do some more research. But definitely helpful. I really like the idea of racing on a steel bike with the quill stem, and not in some hipster way. I am the opposite of hip.

But it seems a bike that in 40 years, I will still love, and cherish, while so many aluminum and carbon bikes....meh. However - if I am going to train hard to race, I also do not want the bike to truly put me at a disadvantage. The experience with the older bikes does give me pause, but I also realize the tubing in 2011 is so much better, both in terms of shape as well as the material itself.

Damn - the one problem with custom - tough to test ride them before using them.

Cut your teeth with a steel framed bike. Once you get more experienced, that is the time to decide on whether you want to go to an aluminum or carbon framed bike.

Man, times and technology have changed. It honestly sounds like you need two bikes.

You seem to like the look of vintage stuff and you are looking for us to say, "Yeah, you will love racing it." but we won't. Once you start racing seriously, you will opt for modern equipment.

There are some pieces of equipment from yester-year that are still being used today (cogs, chainrings, cranks, hubs, rims, bars, saddles). But the frames, forks, and stems have been left behind.

So, you pretty much have 3 choices:
- Race a vintage type bike (steel, quill stem, etc...)
- Race a modern bike (aluminum, carbon fiber, threadless stem...)
- Make one of each. This isn't such a bad option. Tejano and BabyPuke have both types as well as many others.


That's pretty much how it's probably gonna work. I'll bet a dollar to a dime, that if you make a vintage type bike, then get bitten by the racing bug, you'll build a modern race rig. They aren't expensive, you know.

I recently raced my steel bike, but with spoke wheels, just for kicks at a local race. Yeah, I was a little slower, but not much. Would I do this at a major race? No, I;d use the Dolan. So maybe there's your answer. But I like Carlton's idea-- buy both! I did, and still love and ride both bikes.

These days I do most of my road training on the steel bike (with a brake) and most track stuff is on the carbon bike. But the NJS sometimes gets on the track, too. It's fun to have the option.

And-- the steel bike is better looking.

Or you could just get what you like and what feels good.

I spent much of last year on an inexpensive 10 year old steel bike and a 2010 Felt TK3 (Aluminum). I tend to like the old steel bike better because it is more comfortable. 80% or so of the races are jockying for position, and 20% (or less) is actually sprinting. If I am comfortable and relaxed on a bike for much of the race, I am going to be better prepared for the sprinting part of the race. Like has been stated, the engine makes a big difference.

donwalkercycles.com don who runs NAHBS and started his own team this year (Rio Blanco Racing) builds completey competive steel bikes. there seems to be a lot of steel hate here. vanilla and sachs both sponsor competive cyclocross teams. don walker and shamrock cycles both sponsor teams. men of steel started last year and had sucess. remember alumnium from the 80s? it sucked! but it has come a long way as has carbon and so has steel. steel tubing has gotten lighter and stiffer. the problem is carbon is cheaper for big companies to manafacturer so that is where advertising dollars have been focused and big companies have moved away from steel production leaving it to the little custom guys who cant compete with a $1600 carbon full SRAm Apex Bike. here in indianapolis there are plenty of steel bikes at major taylor velodrome some of which are quill stem. last year the fastest bike at the track was a specialized langster with alex rims. it was fastest because the engine not the alumnium(this is a crappy hipster bike). one more thing don walker and rio blanco racing will be hosting a steel ONLY 3 day track event at major taylor velodrome this summer more details to follow

I've got a lot of love for steel, I think that was plain in my previous posts. In fact, my latest dream bike is the Yamaguchi Kilo/Pursuit frame. Sweet...

donwalkercycles.com don who runs NAHBS and started his own team this year (Rio Blanco Racing) builds completey competive steel bikes. there seems to be a lot of steel hate here. vanilla and sachs both sponsor competive cyclocross teams. don walker and shamrock cycles both sponsor teams. men of steel started last year and had sucess. remember alumnium from the 80s? it sucked! but it has come a long way as has carbon and so has steel. steel tubing has gotten lighter and stiffer. the problem is carbon is cheaper for big companies to manafacturer so that is where advertising dollars have been focused and big companies have moved away from steel production leaving it to the little custom guys who cant compete with a $1600 carbon full SRAm Apex Bike. here in indianapolis there are plenty of steel bikes at major taylor velodrome some of which are quill stem. last year the fastest bike at the track was a specialized langster with alex rims. it was fastest because the engine not the alumnium(this is a crappy hipster bike). one more thing don walker and rio blanco racing will be hosting a steel ONLY 3 day track event at major taylor velodrome this summer more details to follow

Really great points, and look forward to hearing / seeing photos covering the event at the velodrome.

So, you pretty much have 3 choices:
- Race a vintage type bike (steel, quill stem, etc...)
- Race a modern bike (aluminum, carbon fiber, threadless stem...)
- Make one of each. This isn't such a bad option. Tejano and BabyPuke have both types as well as many others.


That's pretty much how it's probably gonna work. I'll bet a dollar to a dime, that if you make a vintage type bike, then get bitten by the racing bug, you'll build a modern race rig. They aren't expensive, you know.

I like the look of older vintage bikes, but I think if I get real into this I'll be going with a Fuji Track Pro or Comp.

... last year the fastest bike at the track was a specialized langster with alex rims. it was fastest because the engine not the alumnium(this is a crappy hipster bike)....

Boy, now I'm curious. The fastest bike was a stock Langster? Not an S-works, but just the regular langster?

I have a hard time believing that, because I have a Langster. I can't ride it at the 'dome because of pedal strike, but the geometry is also all wrong. Its a great road bike, but I have a hard time imagining it on the track (unless it has an incredible engine who should be competing at a higher level event).

that engine has won the little 500 twice. it is one of the british flag langsters from a few years back. i dont know what the crank length is but major taylor is a 333 meter track and 172.5 can be used with little problem.
something else you might want to consider is your tracks condition. st louis' "velodrome" or Kenosha are extremely rough old tracks. Major taylor is getting worse and a steel bike is going to soak that stuff up a little. if you are riding a wooden track go alumnium or carbon(most carbon track bikes are just made in china garbage and aren't well thought out.)also back in 93? 94? hartwell and nothstein both broke seatposts at major taylor during the nats.

Why is velodrome in quotes for Penrose? Its not the nicest track around, but has weekly races, with some very fine riders and held the only state championship omnium in the country.

i mean no offense. i plan to ride ol' bumpy face this year. re: steel is real national championships we will be doing a lopro kilometer so dig out those funny bikes.