Classic & Vintage - Vintage Steel vs. Modern Steel vs. Aluminum/Carbon

I love my Motobecane Sprint. It's a great bike as far as I am concerned(though my experience with it has been like going from a used Jeep of an old MTB to a new Lotus). The thing is though, I really love the ride of old steel frames. Because of this I was thinking about finding a Masi Gran Criterium frameset, and using the Ultegra 6600 components from my Motobecane on it. They're not the absolute top of the Ultegra line any more, but they work very well and I already own them.

The thing is the Motobecane is wonderfully stiff, and I don't know how much performance I'll be giving up just to have the feel of steel and a vintage looking frame under me. I also don't know if this modern Masi steel frame will perform like a classic steel bike(it is lugged and uses Reynolds 525). It is designed around 700c wheels, and has geometry that is within a few tenths of a degree of my Motobecane in every dimension(except the wheelbase, which is like 10mm longer on the Masi).

Does anyone here have experience making this sort of switch? I'm asking here because you all have vintage road bikes, and if there is any crosstalk with the retro-modern road bike crowd I think I can paint an accurate picture of what this switch would entail.

http://www.masibikes.com/gallery/albums/album-94/lg/2011_grancriterium_blk.jpg
Isn't it pretty?

I had a similar experience a couple years ago. I first went from a modern stiff aluminum frame to a 1987 Paramount. In comparison I found it flexible and bouncy. I then tried modern Waterford with "oversized" steel tubing and found it much more to my liking. I have also since picked up a 1992 Paramount which also has OS tubing and that has turned into my main ride. It has a full 7700 DA group on it and is pretty much my perfect bike.

Carbon is the devil....

Also this site just scares me......
http://www.bustedcarbon.com/

The answer in this forum is simple.... buy more parts, build both, ride both, problem solved. Then buy some true vintage steel, build it up to ride so that you can do a true comparison between frames and steel.

Carbon is for racers...

Maybe a good deal on a modern steel frame: http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_522241_-1_202311_10000_202337

I don't care what anybody says, but from an engineering point of view aluminum is a much better material for bike frames than steel because it is far easier to form and fabricate into complex shapes. I have a 73 531db racer, a 93 racer with shaped oversized Columbus nivacrome steel tubing, and three newish aluminum bikes, one with 7005 oversized tubes, another with shaped Columbus Zonal, and another with shaped Columbus Altec. For stiffness, NVH suppression, and lightness the modern aluminum bikes win easily. That said, I am very fond of my steel bikes and ride them as often as the others.

Do CF bikes get stuck seatposts?

Do CF bikes get stuck seatposts?

I've had problems with CF seatposts slipping / dropping into the seat tube.

Out of curiosity, I see that nashbar sell there own frames that are branded "nashbar" On my localish CL a older nashbar bike popped up like 80's era. Was nashbar a bike company to begin with before they started supplying components and there own line or???

The answer in this forum is simple.... buy more parts, build both, ride both, problem solved. Then buy some true vintage steel, build it up to ride so that you can do a true comparison between frames and steel.

Carbon is for racers...

I'm in college, that's not happening any time soon! I have some seat time on a 1981 Colnago Super that I really enjoyed though. It had a great ride quality, though it was noticeably less stiff than my Motobecane.

From what I've read, built up with Shimano 105 the Masi is about 2lbs heavier than my Motobecane with Ultegra. I'm not sure how much I'll feel the extra two pounds from the saddle, but something tells me it won't be a huge difference to a 190lb rider.

The only experience I have with a modern steel frame is my Gunnar Sport. Took it on a first ride this morning. Feels great and is much stiffer than the CV steel frames I've owned. My main rider was a Specialized Sirrus before I sold it and replaced it with a modern alu/CF bike. The Sirrus was a bit whippier than the Gunnar, especially when climbing. However, this isn't a really fair comparison as the Gunnar is made at Waterford and I didn't ride with the same wheels either.

I don't care what anybody says, but from an engineering point of view aluminum is a much better material for bike frames than steel because it is far easier to form and fabricate into complex shapes.

That's an interesting comment. I've always viewed steel as the more versatile material, with respect to forming and fabricating. What methods of forming and fabricating are you referring to?

That's an interesting comment. I've always viewed steel as the more versatile material, with respect to forming and fabricating. What methods of forming and fabricating are you referring to?

Maybe he's referring to extrusions? Steel responds better to heat and bending, which makes it handy for the hobbyist. If you have the equipment to mess with Aluminum though it is a very versatile material.

I have two road bikes, one is all columbus steel with downtube shifters and the other one has an aluminum frame / carbon fork with 10 speed STI. They're definitely very different rides. If you want a steel bike by all means try one out. Steel frames do have disadvantages but realistically with the same components and wheels, I don't think you'll be giving up much or any performance. The biggest difference will be in how it feels.

Unless you are racing, an extra kilogram or two of frame weight is innocuous. I happen to like the look and feel of vintage steel.

Carbon is for racer's who have sponsors with deep pockets(made in the far east and OOOOver Priced)! Aluminum is ok for short 50 mile ride, you'll feel the pain after a ride. Steel is for endurance, long distance rides, melts into on biometal. Titanium is overall the best of the group, light, comfy and will take you to places where no person been there before!

There are better, more modern carbon bikes than my lugged CF 1988.
There are better, more modern steel bikes than my lugged steel 85-89.
There are better, more modern aluminum bikes than my aluminum 1986.

I know they are out there. I haven't come across a reason to get one and keep it.
Yet.

I ride and race a Soma Smoothie Road Race frame made from Tange Prestige tubing. It suits my needs, but I do get lots and lots of crap from my riding buddies for riding steel.

Honestly, having ridden many high end carbon, aluminum, and steel bikes, I could care less between the three. I'm always getting told that if I switch to a carbon frame and drop 1 or 2 pounds of bike weight, I'll undoubtedly go faster...I think it's all bull****.

I'M THE ENGINE - the bike is merely a materialization of my efforts. If I can't push a 21pound steel bike up a hill, I sure as hell won't push that 17pounder up the hill any easier.

I am, however, a total Kent Eriksen titanium fanboy. I have a slush fund for a custom frame for when I stop growing.

I ride and race a Soma Smoothie Road Race frame made from Tange Prestige tubing. It suits my needs, but I do get lots and lots of crap from my riding buddies for riding steel.

Honestly, having ridden many high end carbon, aluminum, and steel bikes, I could care less between the three. I'm always getting told that if I switch to a carbon frame and drop 1 or 2 pounds of bike weight, I'll undoubtedly go faster...I think it's all bull****.

I'M THE ENGINE - the bike is merely a materialization of my efforts. If I can't push a 21pound steel bike up a hill, I sure as hell won't push that 17pounder up the hill any easier.

I am, however, a total Kent Eriksen titanium fanboy. I have a slush fund for a custom frame for when I stop growing.

Leaving them in the dust with a steel bike doesn't shut them up? In my experience, it does :)

What about power transfer? How much efficiency would I be losing going from aluminum bonded to carbon over to a lugged steel setup? I have ridden old steel bikes(good ones, not just my Schwinn), and I have noticed a definite loss in efficiency going from my modern bike to a lugged steel frame. I figure that if it is apparent at my low level that it will become worse as time passes by.

If the difference between a bike like the Masi and my Motobecane(or similar bike with aluminum construction and carbon seatstays) is only like 5-10% it's really not a big deal, but if it's like 60% that would be a downgrade even though I like the aesthetics of the Steel bike WAY better.

Note: I wouldn't toss the lugged steel fork, but I would probably wind up using my carbon fork on the steel frame anyways.

I don't think there's any loss in actual efficiency just because of the frame flexing. You're turning the cranks which are directly linked to the rear wheel, if the frame flexes that's just something it does, I don't think it's significant. The weight and handling (handling being a function of the fork and geometry mainly) are the major differences IMO.

I don't think there's any loss in actual efficiency just because of the frame flexing. You're turning the cranks which are directly linked to the rear wheel, if the frame flexes that's just something it does, I don't think it's significant. The weight and handling (handling being a function of the fork and geometry mainly) are the major differences IMO.
I would respectfully disagree with you about frame flex. If I could get my younger legs back and took going fast seriously, I would want the stiffest bike I could stand. The energy lost through a flexing frame may not be very noticeable, but it is still real. I like steel frames because comfort is more important to me these days. But, I still ride my aluminum frame with carbon fork more than any other bike. I've never ridden a carbon frame, so I can't comment on them.

I would respectfully disagree with you about frame flex. If I could get my younger legs back and took going fast seriously, I would want the stiffest bike I could stand. The energy lost through a flexing frame may not be very noticeable, but it is still real. I like steel frames because comfort is more important to me these days. But, I still ride my aluminum frame with carbon fork more than any other bike. I've never ridden a carbon frame, so I can't comment on them.

I agree with you, I just don't think the difference is significant enough for most people (even racers) to wring their hands over. Ultimately the stronger rider will prevail but at higher levels when competition is more... well... competitive every advantage counts.

No, it doesn't matter much over a mile, or even ten miles. Let's say you're riding hard for 50 miles though, and it's the last 12.5 miles of a metric century and you're riding a bike where the power transfer is like 10% less efficient(which would be a lot, but it's a hypothetical). By the time you've gotten to that point you have lost 10% of the reserve power you would otherwise have had. You'd feel that. I mean sure, your body would adjust over time to the lesser efficiency, but why take a loss you don't have to?

It's not even close to a 10% difference though. Like I said most of your energy is going directly to the chain which turns the wheel. The biggest difference is going to be the aerodynamics (which mainly depends on the riding position) then the weight. If you're that worried about outright performance there's absolutely no reason to go with a steel bike, however, the stiffness thing is much less significant than you think.

It's not even close to a 10% difference though. Like I said most of your energy is going directly to the chain which turns the wheel. The biggest difference is going to be the aerodynamics (which mainly depends on the riding position) then the weight. If you're that worried about outright performance there's absolutely no reason to go with a steel bike, however, the stiffness thing is much less significant than you think.

There's a considerable amount of downward force, as well - especially if you're climbing. Frame flex, any frame flex, will sap forward momentum. It adds up on steep and/or longish climbs.

rothenfield1 is right.

Maybe he's referring to extrusions? Steel responds better to heat and bending, which makes it handy for the hobbyist. If you have the equipment to mess with Aluminum though it is a very versatile material.

Metal forming includes processes like extrusion, forging, stamping, and hydroforming, the latter allowing for very complex three dimensional shapes externally and in cross section. Fabrication includes joining processes such as bonding and welding to assemble structures from multiple forged, stamped etc components. A big advantage of aluminum versus steel is that forming can take place at much lower temperatures and applied pressures, making it less costly to work with for mass produced, high performance applications where high temperatures and corrosive environmental conditions are not encountered. High strength aerospace alloys, better control of geometry, and lower production costs favor aluminum. CF wins it all because of equal or better control of geometry, and even lighter weight.

It says a lot about the bike industry that mostly aluminum jet airliners like the 707 and mach 2 fighters were flying around in the 1950's, but aluminum bike frames didn't become prevalent until 40 years later.

Out of curiosity, I see that nashbar sell there own frames that are branded "nashbar" On my localish CL a older nashbar bike popped up like 80's era. Was nashbar a bike company to begin with before they started supplying components and there own line or???

In the 1980s, some of the Nashbar stuff was really nice. High end frame tubing, nice components, they were quite nice. Even their paint and decals were nice! The new Nashbar stuff to me is just the generic Asian supplied frames. Might as well go with bikedirect, or whoever has the cheapest deal. Myself, I would not put the time into building up a Nashbar frame, too many good branded frames out there used at even lower prices. And when you are done with that build, you will have a Nishiki, or a Panasonic, or a (fill in the blank with a recognized brand name), versus a Nashbar.

I've got a steel Bianchi from the 70s and a steel F.Moser Pro from 97. I got rid of an aluminium Felt a while back. I notice the difference between the Bianchi and the Moser, and I got rid of the alu Felt because it was awful compared to the steel, IMO. Unless you're serious into racing, I wouldn't worry about it. I've been for 100km rides with guys on carbon bikes, and I've never been in a situation where I've thought "I wish my frame was carbon, I'd perform better." The Moser has great components and it's maintained well -- so it rides like a dream.

The point I wanted to make, before I typed all that crap above, is this: I think steel is strong and relatively cheap. Repairs aren't such a big hassle if something gets bent out of shape. Alu and carbon are easily written off. It's no coincidence that most old steel frames have the derailluer hanger built in, whereas the new alu and carbon frames use replaceable alu hangers. I've had a steel frame bent back for me in an hour by a builder for 10 bucks after a serious accident and I've spent a month trekking around Rome looking for a Felt alu hanger after I (stupidly) dropped the frame while replacing the wheel. So, I love steel.

That said, I troll constantly for a alu/carbon Marco Pantani-era Bianchi, so I can't even convince myself ...

In the 1980s, some of the Nashbar stuff was really nice. High end frame tubing, nice components, they were quite nice. Even their paint and decals were nice! The new Nashbar stuff to me is just the generic Asian supplied frames. Might as well go with bikedirect, or whoever has the cheapest deal. Myself, I would not put the time into building up a Nashbar frame, too many good branded frames out there used at even lower prices. And when you are done with that build, you will have a Nishiki, or a Panasonic, or a (fill in the blank with a recognized brand name), versus a Nashbar.

I recently came across a scan from an old Bicycling Magazine article from July 1985... in it was a review of a Nashbar Sport EX. Article said it was made by Maruishi, in Japan, and had favorable reviews. I just picked up a Maruishi myself recently and enjoy it.

Also this site just scares me......
http://www.bustedcarbon.com/

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/crazy-b/seven-frame-bb.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/crazy-b/lemond_broken.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/crazy-b/IMG_3625.jpg

So what.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/crazy-b/seven-frame-bb.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/crazy-b/lemond_broken.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a57/crazy-b/IMG_3625.jpg

So what.

Eek. Don't tell me that they're all your bikes, Crazyb? They're some upsetting images.

Eek. Don't tell me that they're all your bikes, Crazyb? They're some upsetting images.

No, just showing that any frame or component can fail. Not just carbon or aluminum.

No, just showing that any frame or component can fail. Not just carbon or aluminum.

Agreed. Hate to bring this up after Wouter Weylandt's death in the Giro this year, but there are plenty of crashes in pro cycling, especially during Paris-Roubaix, and those supposedly fragile carbon fiber bikes hold up fine.

On topic:

Even between old steel, there are so many variations. The 0.1mm difference between Columbus SL and SP can be huge change in stiffness between two frames with the same dimensions. The only "modern" steel I've experienced is Reynolds 853 and that was noticeably stiffer compared to to the older cromo I'm familiar with. Then there's modern carbon fiber. I was on a midrange Giant from a few years ago and it was a completely different beast, totally rock solid and smooth, but it didn't make me go "wow!".

I notice that any discussion of ally or CF as "best" fails to include how lively a well-made steel bike feels under the rider. Sure, there's some frame flex. That flex, IMO, is the difference between being totally inoperable the day after a century ride, and being able to go about your business as normal. I *feel* like I can go farther, faster, on a steel bike.

No, just showing that any frame or component can fail. Not just carbon or aluminum.

Phew. I felt sorry for you there. I agree with you totally, and with jeebus. I've seen crashed carbon race bikes hold up fine and two weeks ago, the fork on my gf's step-over steel frame, that she rides at about 10kph, broke in half, even though she's tiny and she goes slow. I also know well enough that there's carbon fibre and then there's carbon fibre. I don't like when my friends argue the subtle differences between almost identical steel tubing and then dismiss cf as something that's the same across the board. The reason I'd recommend steel is that you get more for your buck, and it feels good, it's easier to fix and it looks cool ;). But I would say that, because I'm a few grand short of being able to afford that Colnago C59 ...

What about power transfer? Are you that powerful?
How much efficiency would I be losing going from aluminum bonded to carbon over to a lugged steel setup? Probably not enough to measure.

I have ridden old steel bikes(good ones, not just my Schwinn), and I have noticed a definite loss in efficiency going from my modern bike to a lugged steel frame. I figure that if it is apparent at my low level that it will become worse as time passes by. Don't overestimate "feel." It may feel like more than it is.

If the difference between a bike like the Masi and my Motobecane(or similar bike with aluminum construction and carbon seatstays) is only like 5-10% it's really not a big deal, but if it's like 60% that would be a downgrade even though I like the aesthetics of the Steel bike WAY better.
Note: I wouldn't toss the lugged steel fork, but I would probably wind up using my carbon fork on the steel frame anyways.

I don't think it would be as high as 5%. I was definitely not 5% faster on a 15.9lb CF Kestrel than a 19.2lb Cinelli Centurion. That's a minute every 20. Riding fast is also about keeping momentum, shifting on time, anticipation, and carrying speed through corners. My plastic pals also advise that, after a certain speed point, it's about aero, too. All that is true, but 5% worth would be a surprise to me; maybe with plenty of climbing. My best tri leg ever was on a steel bike, and the event was won by a guy on a steel bike. From what I can tell at pro events, the really good riders have technique, power, endurance, and the ability to suffer. I'd be willing to bet that carries down to slugs like me, too.

Power transfer won't be lost through flex (Or at most the smallest most imperceptible loss). Power transfer loss is caused by drag (bearings,chain, brake rub, tires, etc.) and usual power loss to overcome a mechanical enegy transfer system (i.e. drivetrain). The only thing flex is going to cause is a possible shift issue (ghost shift usually) , a delay in the transfer of power to the rear wheel and, for some, a strange feeling when pedaling hard.

I don't know if I buy the flexing detracts from energy transfer theory. There are too many examples in other sports proving just the opposite. Metal baseball bats and modern golf clubs for example. Look at skateboarders and snowboarders. Those boards certainly are not stiff. But the best example is a top fuel dragster. It's frame is specifically designed to flex during acceleration to help transfer the power to the ground with the least amount of traction loss.(at least I think it is)

My early 1980s 56 cm steel (Columbus SL) frame Ciocc San Cristobal is only 2.5 pounds heavier than my riding buddy's 2010 51 cm full carbon Cannondale Synapse and I can still take him on what passes for hills down here in south Louisiana.

My wife's early 1980s 50 cm steel (Columbus SL) Colnago Super actually weighs 0.5 pounds lighter than my buddy's Cannondale Synapse.

CF is truly wonderful stuff, but so is lightweight steel. "To each his own."

Metal forming includes processes like extrusion, forging, stamping, and hydroforming, the latter allowing for very complex three dimensional shapes externally and in cross section. Fabrication includes joining processes such as bonding and welding to assemble structures from multiple forged, stamped etc components. A big advantage of aluminum versus steel is that forming can take place at much lower temperatures and applied pressures, making it less costly to work with for mass produced, high performance applications where high temperatures and corrosive environmental conditions are not encountered. High strength aerospace alloys, better control of geometry, and lower production costs favor aluminum. CF wins it all because of equal or better control of geometry, and even lighter weight.

It says a lot about the bike industry that mostly aluminum jet airliners like the 707 and mach 2 fighters were flying around in the 1950's, but aluminum bike frames didn't become prevalent until 40 years later.

I concede you're quite knowledgeable about metal forming and fabricating. I'm not sure what your point is in the last sentence. In aerospace, stiffness is paramount (no pun intended). In bikes, not so much. Can you elucidate your point?
In the body of your post, I interpret that you're contending that (leaving CF out of the discussion) aluminum is nowadays more versatile than steel for bike frame engineering (inclusive design, analysis, component forming, and final fabrication). If so, I'd be interested in some comparable cases in point. I hasten to add, I'm not a detractor of aluminum; I'm pretty aware of its strengths & weaknesses, and I'm hoping to learn something.