Fifty Plus (50+) - Classic Italian steel or modern American steel, which should I choose?

My recent usage & ownership of a modern road bike was good but not ideal. My Ti bike has now been sold. The only negative issue I had with the bike was the short head-tube and the large drop between the saddle and the handlebars. The position was great for fast group rides or for 50 mile fitness rides. However, the position put too much weight on my hands, and after four hours of riding, my hands would tingle, and would continue to tingle for a few days or longer. I could resolve the issue with a new uncut fork and use bunch of goofy spacers to raise the handlebar, or I could use a different bike with a longer head-tube. I also discovered that Titanium is the best material for the kind of cycling I enjoy, but that a high quality steel bike is 99% as good at 1/3 the cost. It’s really the motor that matters.

So I’m considering a classic Italian steel bike or a modern American steel bike, but I’m not sure which will perform better. The classic Italian is a Gios Torino Professional from the 1980’s. The American bike is a contemporary Gunner Cyclocross model. Both use top of the line materials and construction. The Gios is a 2x6 drivetrain, I would probably upgrade the bike with modern 2x10 drivetrain and brifters.

Both bikes should make for comfortable long distance travel for century rides and 200k events. Gios is a superlative bike builder, but will the frame be too flexy for a 210 lbs rider? The Gunner CX bike is built brawny should be perfectly rigid and a good climber, but seems a little less poetic.

Any opinions?

Given the choice would you rather own a new Corvette or a 57 Chevy resto-rod?

If I were buying a steel bike I'd look for the most modern material from a builder that will match your needs. It will cost more but you will probably enjoy it more too. What size was the Ti bike? How tall was the HT? Have you considered something like a Roubaix carbon frame? Keep your options open?

What size was the Ti bike? How tall was the HT? Have you considered something like a Roubaix carbon frame? Keep your options open?

The Ti bike was an XL with a 58cm seat-tube, 59cm virtual top-tube and a 180mm head-tube. This is a Sportive geometry. The Roubaix does have a longer head-tube, but I'd rather not have CF due to the risk of catastrophic failure. For 100+ mile events I need a 200mm heat-tube and long reach brakes or a CX frame with a 185+mm head-tube length. I work with a professional fitter and my current CX bike and 1987 Trek road bike fit perfectly.

Someday I'll have a custom Ti bike built, but not now.

The folklore is that old Italian bikes were very stiff and had a harsh ride. Me, I couldn't resist the Italian and that's what I'd get. That said, I'd keep my ti cyclocross road bike as well.

I suspect the reality is that it all depends on the specific bikes. The difference in geometry may overshadow all else. If the Italian bike has a larger seat tube angle, that will make the seat to bar distance effectively longer than a more relaxed angle for the same effective top tube length. That would of course stretch you out more with more weight on the hands.

That's assuming that you keep the same saddle position relative to the bottom bracket which is normally done. The effect is magnified further if the head tube angle is also steeper.

Al

Old Italian bikes are sexy, but materials engineering has advanced way past Columbus SL and Reynolds 531. The bike I use almost exclusively today (A Rodriguez built by Dennis Bushnell at R&E in Seattle) is made of True Temper's air-hardenable OX Platinum, a steel that was designed to be TIG-welded. It is 3x stronger than the old 531, and loses very little of its tensile strength when it is heated. It also gives a lively, interesting ride, way more interesting than carbon fiber. What I don't like about the Italian bikes made in the 80's is that tend to break (especially if you weigh more than 160 lbs), and their geometries are often goofy. Although such is not the case with your Gios, I've found Italian frames for US export were usually built with too-short top tubes and too-steep head and seat tubes. As a result, they would not corner very well. I remember switching from Italian frames to a carbon fiber Trek back in the late 90's, and I could not believe how stable and precise the Trek was on fast corners. Today, I think the better US builders have the geometries pretty-well dialed in for what the bike will be used for. I'd go for modern steel from a reputable US builder.

L.

The folklore is that old Italian bikes were very stiff and had a harsh ride. Me, I couldn't resist the Italian and that's what I'd get. That said, I'd keep my ti cyclocross road bike as well.

I suspect the reality is that it all depends on the specific bikes. The difference in geometry may overshadow all else. If the Italian bike has a larger seat tube angle, that will make the seat to bar distance effectively longer than a more relaxed angle for the same effective top tube length. That would of course stretch you out more with more weight on the hands.

That's assuming that you keep the same saddle position relative to the bottom bracket which is normally done. The effect is magnified further if the head tube angle is also steeper.

Al

Great information Al, Thank you!

I have sold the Ti road bike. I'm keeping a 1987 sport/touring Trek 400, is my year around utility/rain bike, it fits very well. I will also continue to keep my existing steel CX bike, a Soma Double Cross, its ride quality is magical. The Soma fits also perfectly, but is a little too flexy on climbs. The Gunnar geometry is within a few mm's of the Soma geometry and would fit as well, but it would be a stiffer climber.

I now can see that the Gios would not duplicate the fit of any of my current bikes, so the purchase is more of a gamble. Of all the sizes produced by Gios, this is the best size. It's 64cm seat-post and the head-tube looks very long in pictures. I haven’t seen the bike yet and will check the dims when I do.

The head-tube angle is 75 degrees, and the seat tube looks just as steep. Does this kill any potential for a smooth ride?

Old Italian bikes are sexy, but materials engineering has advanced way past Columbus SL and Reynolds 531. The bike I use almost exclusively today (A Rodriguez built by Dennis Bushnell at R&E in Seattle) is made of True Temper's air-hardenable OX Platinum, a steel that was designed to be TIG-welded. It is 3x stronger than the old 531, and loses very little of its tensile strength when it is heated. It also gives a lively, interesting ride, way more interesting than carbon fiber. What I don't like about the Italian bikes made in the 80's is that tend to break (especially if you weigh more than 160 lbs), and their geometries are often goofy. Although such is not the case with your Gios, I've found Italian frames for US export were usually built with too-short top tubes and too-steep head and seat tubes. As a result, they would not corner very well. I remember switching from Italian frames to a carbon fiber Trek back in the late 90's, and I could not believe how stable and precise the Trek was on fast corners. Today, I think the better US builders have the geometries pretty-well dialed in for what the bike will be used for. I'd go for modern steel from a reputable US builder.

L.

More good info, thanks! The Gunner is OS2.

Well, you seem to have problems with production bikes. There are some excellent american custom bike builders. You might think going that route. A good custom guy will give you a custom fit that suits your cycling style and your body dimensions. That is hard to beat.

Now the Italian bikes certainly have a tremedous amount of flair. If that appeals to you, that would be the way to go.

Old Italian bikes are sexy, but materials engineering has advanced way past Columbus SL and Reynolds 531. The bike I use almost exclusively today (A Rodriguez built by Dennis Bushnell at R&E in Seattle) is made of True Temper's air-hardenable OX Platinum, a steel that was designed to be TIG-welded. It is 3x stronger than the old 531, and loses very little of its tensile strength when it is heated. It also gives a lively, interesting ride, way more interesting than carbon fiber. What I don't like about the Italian bikes made in the 80's is that tend to break (especially if you weigh more than 160 lbs), and their geometries are often goofy. Although such is not the case with your Gios, I've found Italian frames for US export were usually built with too-short top tubes and too-steep head and seat tubes. As a result, they would not corner very well. I remember switching from Italian frames to a carbon fiber Trek back in the late 90's, and I could not believe how stable and precise the Trek was on fast corners. Today, I think the better US builders have the geometries pretty-well dialed in for what the bike will be used for. I'd go for modern steel from a reputable US builder.

L.

^ THis. Plus you don't have to worry about spreading the Italian to get to 10 speeds.

The Gios has very steep seat and head tube angles. While that doesn't necessarily mean the ride will be uncomfortable, it will have very quick steering. That's something you may not like for long rides - like driving a sports car on a 500 mile interstate trip.

Choosing between those specific bikes, I would go to the Gunnar, much as I love the Gios.

You can get the Gunnar in custom geometry if you want to (longer head tube) but the Gunnar will be a more versatile bike in the long run.

It will have fender mounts and rack mounts. I am always surprised by how few people place any I pittance on fender mounts.

For those two bikes - Gunnar.

My recent usage & ownership of a modern road bike was good but not ideal. My Ti bike has now been sold. The only negative issue I had with the bike was the short head-tube and the large drop between the saddle and the handlebars. The position was great for fast group rides or for 50 mile fitness rides. However, the position put too much weight on my hands, and after four hours of riding, my hands would tingle, and would continue to tingle for a few days or longer. I could resolve the issue with a new uncut fork and use bunch of goofy spacers to raise the handlebar, or I could use a different bike with a longer head-tube. I also discovered that Titanium is the best material for the kind of cycling I enjoy, but that a high quality steel bike is 99% as good at 1/3 the cost. It’s really the motor that matters.

So I’m considering a classic Italian steel bike or a modern American steel bike, but I’m not sure which will perform better. The classic Italian is a Gios Torino Professional from the 1980’s. The American bike is a contemporary Gunner Cyclocross model. Both use top of the line materials and construction. The Gios is a 2x6 drivetrain, I would probably upgrade the bike with modern 2x10 drivetrain and brifters.

Both bikes should make for comfortable long distance travel for century rides and 200k events. Gios is a superlative bike builder, but will the frame be too flexy for a 210 lbs rider? The Gunner CX bike is built brawny should be perfectly rigid and a good climber, but seems a little less poetic.

Any opinions?

In another forum (non-BF) Jan Heine recently wrote that he always prefers lighter-tubed frames because of the "liveliness" or "planing" effect. I doubt a flexy frame will feel noodly or bad in any way. More likely it will feel lively. But I really think it has more to do with strength than weight.

Do you prefer stiff frames? You like your Paramount and just said you liked the feel of Ti. I suspect you'd like a supple frame. I'd go for the Gios, myself, if the geometry was right.

I also think you need to think about how long a head tube you need to avoid the drop problem you had with the Ti bike. It would also be worthwhile to figure out how much saddle setback you need, i.e how far behind the BB the saddle needs to be, the part of it that actually hits your sit bones. If you get a Gios or whatever and it does not allow you to place the saddle far enough back or forward to get proper weight distribution, you may still have too much weight on your hands.

If one of your bikes is already perfect (and if you can do a comfortable 200k on it, that's a pretty good indication), measure it and use that as a basis for selecting a new one.

... What I don't like about the Italian bikes made in the 80's is that tend to break (especially if you weigh more than 160 lbs), and their geometries are often goofy. Although such is not the case with your Gios, I've found Italian frames for US export were usually built with too-short top tubes and too-steep head and seat tubes. As a result, they would not corner very well. ...

If one avoids the criterium geometries referenced above and selects something more traditional, such as my Bianchi, the ride quality and cornering are delightful.

Old Italian bikes are sexy, but materials engineering has advanced way past Columbus SL and Reynolds 531. The bike I use almost exclusively today (A Rodriguez built by Dennis Bushnell at R&E in Seattle) is made of True Temper's air-hardenable OX Platinum, a steel that was designed to be TIG-welded. It is 3x stronger than the old 531, and loses very little of its tensile strength when it is heated. It also gives a lively, interesting ride, way more interesting than carbon fiber. What I don't like about the Italian bikes made in the 80's is that tend to break (especially if you weigh more than 160 lbs), and their geometries are often goofy. Although such is not the case with your Gios, I've found Italian frames for US export were usually built with too-short top tubes and too-steep head and seat tubes. As a result, they would not corner very well. I remember switching from Italian frames to a carbon fiber Trek back in the late 90's, and I could not believe how stable and precise the Trek was on fast corners. Today, I think the better US builders have the geometries pretty-well dialed in for what the bike will be used for. I'd go for modern steel from a reputable US builder.

Hence my question about the Corvette vs. the resto-mod. There is no question in my mind that the modern Corvette would be the better car. For pride and fun of ownership, however, I'd pick a well done resto-mod hands down. I suspect it has to do with which side of your brain is dominent.

In other words, I totally agree with you but would probably make the opposite choice.

The Ti bike was an XL with a 58cm seat-tube, 59cm virtual top-tube and a 180mm head-tube. This is a Sportive geometry. The Roubaix does have a longer head-tube, but I'd rather not have CF due to the risk of catastrophic failure. For 100+ mile events I need a 200mm heat-tube and long reach brakes or a CX frame with a 185+mm head-tube length. I work with a professional fitter and my current CX bike and 1987 Trek road bike fit perfectly.

Someday I'll have a custom Ti bike built, but not now.

Don't fly in a modern airplane then. Or drive the latest Mercedes creation.

Don't fly in a modern airplane then. Or drive the latest Mercedes creation.

I think this is a somewhat limited view. The examples given are different uses of carbon in different applications. Each of the vehicles you've mentioned have their own unique set of stressors, and limits as to where or how carbon should or could be used. I've had at least three carbon frames that suffered what could be considered catastrophic failures, in that they failed suddendly and were not able to be repaired for under the cost of a new replacement frame. The OP's concern seems to me to be a vaild one. If he's seeking longevity and understands how he uses and abuses his bikes, carbon may not be his best bet.

To the OP: If you're collecting bikes for the sake of collecting them, I'd go Italian. Your own assessment, however, leads me to believe you should go for the Gunnar. As the owner of a custom built Ti, I would also encourage you to think about if "somday" can be moved up a bit. At just a few months shy of 60, I decided that "waiting" was a young man's game for some things in life. This meant, given my economic circumstances, finding creative ways to finance a custom build. There's not a day I ride that bike, that I'm not glad I didn't wait.

Don't fly in a modern airplane then. Or drive the latest Mercedes creation.

You need to understand that consumers have a choice. If I wanted to win the TDF or if I wanted a TT bike, I would pick carbon fiber. But I'm seeking a bike for 200k events. Explain to me how carbon fiber benefits me? Plus, Titanium and steel have far better resale value. I would not even consider a used CF bike.

Michael

Nah, since there is such a bias about carbon frames gotta keep reminding people that carbon is an accepted structural material. I keep looking for any kind of reputable analysis about carbon frames. Nada. On the ther hand manufacturers continue to expand carbon use in bicycles and other vehicles. If there was any significant problem I'm sure the Hungry Lawyers Society would have sued them to death by now.

Buy whatever you want since each material has a bit different characteristics. But, dangerous material isn't one of them.

By the way, I suspect this, like a couple other current threads, has more to do with keeping up the post count than anything else. Play away.


Another post snuck in while I was typing. The original post cited the danger of carbon fibre as the reason not to buy a bike constructed from it. I'm merely pointing out there is little of no factual data to support that so the concern is misdirected. Buy what you wish but based on desiire, not misunderstanding.

Nah, since there is such a bias about carbon frames gotta keep reminding people that carbon is an accepted structural material. I keep looking for any kind of reputable analysis about carbon frames. Nada. On the ther hand manufacturers continue to expand carbon use in bicycles and other vehicles. If there was any significant problem I'm sure the Hungry Lawyers Society would have sued them to death by now.

Buy whatever you want since each material has a bit different characteristics. But, dangerous material isn't one of them.

By the way, I suspect this, like a couple other current threads, has more to do with keeping up the post count than anything else. Play away.


Another post snuck in while I was typing. The original post cited the danger of carbon fibre as the reason not to buy a bike constructed from it. I'm merely pointing out there is little of no factual data to support that so the concern is misdirected. Buy what you wish but based on desiire, not misunderstanding.

Now you’re making assumptions without data, but that's how you keep your post count up. No-one has even attempted to explain how I would benefit from CF, that’s because there is no benefit for my cycling requirements.

To make general characterizations of how any frame material rides, that can be supported by statistically significant data, is rare and difficult. The claimed benefits of a Spec Roubaix (I don't own one nor have I tested one) are comfort with performance. It's hard to generalize that all carbon frames will deliver comfort with performance. If one or even a few carbon models are not reliable, that says nothing about the set of all carbon bikes. Similarly for steel and aluminum, or anything else. It's possible to engineer or build any frame badly. Probably less likely with steel due to the depth of industry experience, however.

I'm less interested in C because few of my stashed parts will work, for the most part. It's also hard to fine one that will take wider wheels, fenders, and racks; which are options I want. But if a Spec Roubaix arrived on my doorstep, I'd ride it.

The Ti bike was an XL with a 58cm seat-tube, 59cm virtual top-tube and a 180mm head-tube. This is a Sportive geometry. The Roubaix does have a longer head-tube, but I'd rather not have CF due to the risk of catastrophic failure. For 100+ mile events I need a 200mm heat-tube and long reach brakes or a CX frame with a 185+mm head-tube length. I work with a professional fitter and my current CX bike and 1987 Trek road bike fit perfectly.

Someday I'll have a custom Ti bike built, but not now.

I have an Indy Fab Ti Crown Jewel I'm trying to sell that has a 198mm HT and a 60cm traditional TT. The STA is 72º so it's on the slack side which depending on your last bike's geometry might be close. If you're interested drop me a PM and I'll fill you in on the details.

I have an old Italian steel frame that is already set up for 10 spd, columbus SLX tubing, it is a real joy to ride. If you can pick up something like that I would consider it. I know nothing about the Gunner. My last new bike was about 4 years ago, a new CF Specialized Tarmac. I good bike and after working out the fit issues, acceptable for long rides. I use it when I know there will be a lot of climbs, it is stiffer and better geared for hills.

Steel has continued to evolve and the new materials are quite amazing. Columbus has a new XCr tube set for lugged frames, that is what I would consider if I were having a new frame built, I like the looks of a lugged frame.

So lots of choices, but the thing to remember is that no matter what material you choose for your frame, do some research and make sure to get something with quality, there are lots of grades of steel, CF, Al and Ti and what the builder uses makes a difference both in cost and in the ride.

You must be looking at a choice between two used bikes? If I were considering a Gunnar for long distance paved road riding, I believe my first choice would be a Sport, not a Crosshairs.

I have the Gunnar Sport which is very close to the geometry of their 'cross frame. It's very stable and plenty stiff at the BB. Mine is a 62cm and has a 220mm head tube. It has about 25,000 miles now and I'm quite impressed with it.

You must be looking at a choice between two used bikes? If I were considering a Gunnar for long distance paved road riding, I believe my first choice would be a Sport, not a Crosshairs.
+1

I have the Gunnar Sport which is very close to the geometry of their 'cross frame. It's very stable and plenty stiff at the BB. Mine is a 62cm and has a 220mm head tube. It has about 25,000 miles now and I'm quite impressed with it.

I'm considering the Cross-hairs over the Sport. The Cross-hairs is beefier than the Sport, plus I have a very nice Ridley CX fork that is also more rigid than the OE Sport fork, which is not so nice IMO. The only downside of the CX bike is the general performance of the brakes, but this has not been an issue for me.

So lots of choices, but the thing to remember is that no matter what material you choose for your frame, do some research and make sure to get something with quality, there are lots of grades of steel, CF, Al and Ti and what the builder uses makes a difference both in cost and in the ride.

+1

In another forum (non-BF) Jan Heine recently wrote that he always prefers lighter-tubed frames because of the "liveliness" or "planing" effect. I doubt a flexy frame will feel noodly or bad in any way. More likely it will feel lively. But I really think it has more to do with strength than weight.

Do you prefer stiff frames? You like your Paramount and just said you liked the feel of Ti. I suspect you'd like a supple frame. I'd go for the Gios, myself, if the geometry was right.

I also think you need to think about how long a head tube you need to avoid the drop problem you had with the Ti bike. It would also be worthwhile to figure out how much saddle setback you need, i.e how far behind the BB the saddle needs to be, the part of it that actually hits your sit bones. If you get a Gios or whatever and it does not allow you to place the saddle far enough back or forward to get proper weight distribution, you may still have too much weight on your hands.

If one of your bikes is already perfect (and if you can do a comfortable 200k on it, that's a pretty good indication), measure it and use that as a basis for selecting a new one.

Hi Road Fan,

You make several good points.

I find that my existing lower cost steel bikes plane well at cruising speeds of 16 to 21 mph. However, they really don't want to climb or accelerate with much responsiveness, and more effort does not produce as much performance as I would expect. I will say that the Ti bike was able sprint and climb very well.

I’m willing to sacrifice a little ride comfort to gain stiffness in the BB area. I use 700x25 tires on 23mm wide rims at 90 & 100 psi. This wheel-set & tire size are a very comfortable combination.

I’m able to select bikes that fit, in most cases. I have lifetime privileges at Get-A-Grip and they will consult and fit any bike I bring in at N/C. I was hoping I could adapt to the saddle to handlebar drop on the bike I just sold. If only I was 10 years younger and 30 lbs lighter.

I’m willing to sacrifice a little ride comfort to gain stiffness in the BB area.

I was able to get very generous helpings of both ride comfort and BB stiffness with my latest new bike.

I was able to get very generous helpings of both ride comfort and BB stiffness with my latest new bike.

You already told us ;-)

Originally Posted by Barrettscv
I'd rather not have CF due to the risk of catastrophic failure.

Don't fly in a modern airplane then. Or drive the latest Mercedes creation.
Aircraft are required to have regular, thorough and expensive airframe inspections.

I rode and raced a Gios in the '80s. I remember the ride being more compliant than the Roberts I had been using, but after I turned 50 I found the ride too harsh. I now split my miles between a Giant TCR and an '80 Masi. Regarding short head tubes, handlebar drop, etc., I'm essentially in the same position as I was in 1981. But if you think you might need a long head tube, then by all means get a modern bike. A Technomic stem looks pretty stupid on a classic Italian road bike. You'll also like the newest ergonomic handlebar bends.

I'm about 190# right now, and not what anyone would call a bruiser, but today riding my Mondonico (Italian, Columbus probably SL, early 1980s) I found myself charging up my local hills - this Italian babe can climb! Also pretty supple over bumps. You might be happy on something like this.

You need to understand that consumers have a choice. If I wanted to win the TDF or if I wanted a TT bike, I would pick carbon fiber. But I'm seeking a bike for 200k events. Explain to me how carbon fiber benefits me? Plus, Titanium and steel have far better resale value. I would not even consider a used CF bike.

Michael


You didn't say in your orignal post that it was a matter of preference. You said you would not buy carbon fibre because it was unsafe. Based on all available data that just is not the case. I don't care what material you buy. It is your money to spend on whatever you prefer.

You didn't say in your orignal post that it was a matter of preference.

Did you read the title of the thread?

I've had at least three carbon frames that suffered what could be considered catastrophic failures, in that they failed suddendly and were not able to be repaired for under the cost of a new replacement frame.

Please elaborate and provide details. I find this utterly amazing. "at least three"!!! Most people have owned one or two bikes over some period. You've had at least three with possible catastrophic failures?

Guys, Can you take the whole Carbon-fiber conversation somewhere else! This thread is a better match for the whole CF v. Steel debate: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/717563-Carbon-Fiber-or-Steel

Thanks!

The head-tube angle is 75 degrees, and the seat tube looks just as steep. Does this kill any potential for a smooth ride?


I don't think 75 degrees affects ride unless one doesn't fit those angles well. For example, both my cross and mountain bikes have 73 deg. seat tube angle. To make those fit, I have to use a seat post with an inch set-back or my sitting position is too far forward. If I went to a 75 degree angle, that moves the seat forward slightly less than an inch. I have but a quarter inch adjustment left on the saddle rails, so I'd be too far forward.

When I'm that much forward, I work my quads too much vs the hamstrings/glutes and I find myself constantly pushing to the back of the saddle. My wife's road bike wound up with 75 deg. seat post because small frames have to resort to that to provide toe clearance with the front wheel. Luckily, I found a seat post with a 2" set back otherwise, she wouldn't ride.

These are just personal fit issues.

On the carbon vs steel/ti discussion, I've been told that some folks don't like carbon as to them it lacks the more lively feeling of steel/ti. I prefer a more lively feeling bike and have zero interest in carbon except for canoes.

When I replaced my mountain bike frame last year, I had a choice of aluminum or carbon for the same frame. I saved $1400 by going to aluminum at the cost of 1 lb. A loss of 1 lb body weight is equal to more than a pound on the bike because of greater cardiovascular loading. I could easily do with a 10 lb reduction in my weight. Carbon won't affect ride anyhow as the mountain bike is full suspension.

I doubt that more modern frames are any better than the older frames. If so, how and how much? The winning times of the Tour de France have increased at the same rate as
the winning times for 5 kilometer meter and 10 kilometer running races world-wide since they locked-in the newer frame angles (and all the mountain roads were paved) some 50 years ago. That's according to a statistical analysis. It appears that the athlete has gotten better and not the bike; all the adds/media hype not withstanding.

The bikes may have gotten lighter over all, but the tour has a minimum weight requirement, so that factor has been eliminated at least since they've had that requirement.

Al

On the carbon vs steel/ti discussion, I've been told that some folks don't like carbon as to them it lacks the more lively feeling of steel/ti. I prefer a more lively feeling bike and have zero interest in carbon except for canoes....


Al

Al,

Your point is hard to follow, are you saying that weight on the frame does not matter and then using the argument that the TDF speeds have improved at a rate equivalent to runners times yet the TDF has a frame weight limit?

Weight in the frame does matter, body weight of the rider does matter, they all matter. However, unless you are racing and looking for those fractions of a second, it is questionable how much a pound of frame weight is worth. However if you go into a bike shop today your are not likely to find a quality steel frame, the AL frames are usually harsh (that's not to say AL can't provide a good ride) and your only choice is a CF frame. Again - this is a generalization, but most of the big builders don't offer a quality steel frame, you need to go to the smaller or custom builders and most volume shops don't carry them and they cost more. The biggest bang for the buck is CF these days, you can usually get a new full Ultegra CF or AL bike from a Specialized or Giant for little more than what the list price of the components alone would cost you.

I'm considering the Cross-hairs over the Sport. The Cross-hairs is beefier than the Sport, plus I have a very nice Ridley CX fork that is also more rigid than the OE Sport fork, which is not so nice IMO. The only downside of the CX bike is the general performance of the brakes, but this has not been an issue for me.

I have a Kestrel fork on mine, so it has a regular Ultegra brake on the front and a long reach on the rear. Could you run vee-brakes on the Cross-hairs?

I doubt that more modern frames are any better than the older frames. If so, how and how much?

The current issue of Velonews has test data showing a modern aero frame improves 40K time trail speed by more than a minute over a standard frame of similar weight. That's about 5 minutes for a century. Add on aero wheels and you get almost another 5 minutes.

I've been thinking about your needs for a bike. It seems like a touring frame is the answer. The two your are considering now (Gios and Gunnar Cross) are almost night and day difference. I've ridden a Gios and it has quick handling and is stiff. I haven'r ridden a Gunnar cyclocross specifically but I hear it has a very relaxed ride with much more slack geoemetry (about 2 degrees for both angles and has long chain stays. Plus I wouldn't like having those brakes for long rides on the roads.

It seems like you are looking for a Cadilac to cruise but are picking between a Miata and a Hummer.

The current issue of Velonews has test data showing a modern aero frame improves 40K time trail speed by more than a minute over a standard frame of similar weight. That's about 5 minutes for a century. Add on aero wheels and you get almost another 5 minutes.

Have not read the article but would not doubt the premise. However, Al does make a good point, for us mere mortals a high quality older frame bike will yield us equivalent results to a modern state of the art speedster, we just can't drive either bike to it's max potential and unless we are racing we would not know the difference in time anyway. Once you are racing and your fitness goes up accordingly and you start looking for seconds everywhere - then it makes a difference and you are more willing to lighten your wallet improve your ride.

I have a Kestrel fork on mine, so it has a regular Ultegra brake on the front and a long reach on the rear. Could you run vee-brakes on the Cross-hairs?

No, the length of the fork (crown to axle) is not the same.

Have not read the article but would not doubt the premise. However, Al does make a good point, for us mere mortals a high quality older frame bike will yield us equivalent results to a modern state of the art speedster, we just can't drive either bike to it's max potential and unless we are racing we would not know the difference in time anyway. Once you are racing and your fitness goes up accordingly and you start looking for seconds everywhere - then it makes a difference and you are more willing to lighten your wallet improve your ride.

This^.

I wish I had the body and the coin to enjoy a Colnogo C59, but I'm a realist.

I did of a series of speed comparisons with the Ti road bike and the steel CX bike. A bike path near Chicago offers a 7 mile loop with just one street crossing and few pedestrians at dawn or dusk. I ran the loop twice and added the spur to the parking lot for a 19 mile “time trial” distance. After several repeats over a multi week period, the Ti road bike with it’s lighter weight & more aero riding position offered about a 1 mph difference to the CX bike. 19.5 v. 18.5mph.

Now, that is significant. During a century ride, 1 mph is 5 -6 miles or about 15 - 20 minutes.

However, I’m not racing! I’m seeking to finish a challenging 200k in 7 -8 hours. To do that, the bike needs to be comfortable, stable and climb well.

Now, if I was trying to keep up in a fast group ride, I would want that 1 mph. I could also gain the 1 mph through training and weight loss. Which is what I should do.

Michael

Given the amount you ride, and your willingness to go high end, I'd go find the best pro fit guy I could find and discuss this with him. I'd also plan on it taking a little while to find the perfect fit and bike. You might even consider a custom fitted/built steel frame. You're there. bk

Al,

Your point is hard to follow, are you saying that weight on the frame does not matter and then using the argument that the TDF speeds have improved at a rate equivalent to runners times yet the TDF has a frame weight limit?

Weight in the frame does matter, body weight of the rider does matter, they all matter. However, unless you are racing and looking for those fractions of a second, it is questionable how much a pound of frame weight is worth. However if you go into a bike shop today your are not likely to find a quality steel frame, the AL frames are usually harsh (that's not to say AL can't provide a good ride) and your only choice is a CF frame. Again - this is a generalization, but most of the big builders don't offer a quality steel frame, you need to go to the smaller or custom builders and most volume shops don't carry them and they cost more. The biggest bang for the buck is CF these days, you can usually get a new full Ultegra CF or AL bike from a Specialized or Giant for little more than what the list price of the components alone would cost you.

Sorry about that. What I was trying to say that since the TDF has a minimum-weight limit, that bike weight advances are not showing up in the T de F finishing times since the time they started using that rule. For the Tour, if your bike is under weight, they force you to add weights to it. Thus, all the bikes pretty much weigh the same over the years since that rule's inception.

Body weight/bike weight matter big time if you race. You get more bang out of reduced body weight then bike weight. If you race, you have to do both of course.

Lance Armstrong was told he would never win a tour. His power output was at the top, but he had too much muscle mass. His first tour he was told to just finish. He went all out and didn't come close to finishing.

Then he had his cancer. The multi-drug therapy apparently change his physique as he permanently lost some major muscle mass. That put his power-out/weight in the winning category for the Tour which was born out by the results.

I would personally never have an AL road bike. My comments on AL are strictly for my full suspension mountain bike.

Al

If you'd like classic Italian Steel why not check out the Bianchi Vigorelli Reynolds 631 Steel frame super comfortable and sleek Italian design http://www.bianchiusa.com/bikes/gran-fondo/vigorelli/

If you'd like classic Italian Steel why not check out the Bianchi Vigorelli Reynolds 631 Steel frame super comfortable and sleek Italian design http://www.bianchiusa.com/bikes/gran-fondo/vigorelli/

Sweet. Double-butted steel, moderate angles and gaps, classic profile, with all the convenience of STIs, 10-speed cassettes, and a "new ergo" handlebar. What's not to like? Except it doesn't have a head tube like a Roubaix for the can't-bend-over crowd.

The Gunnar Sport is pretty beefy...