KidTruth

O.O

Those bamboo bikes are pretty sweet.

Pretty much this thread tells me that frame materials aren't nearly as important as marketers make them out to be - glad the bike I have now is carbon fork instead of full carbon.

As far as durability... You guys are talking about surviving a crash, not normal-use durability. If you wreck your bike hard enough to break your frame, that probably is the least of your worries.. I'd be more worried about my spine.

Then again, I have medical insurance but no bike insurance... hmm...

Oh yeah, I was thinking - BONE bicycle, anyone? If I die in a crash, I will leave my bones to one of you faithful builders to reconstruct and ride me.

KidTruth

Just poking fun.. your references are about twenty years old

spider-man

What can I saw, I like all things classic and/or vintage.

SingeDebile

sorry but this is simply not true

the cost of replacing a top tube $150
the cost of a pro paint job $350
=$500

the cost of a custom steel frame $1400 and up and up and up

and thats including an A+ paintjob.. you could always get a cheaper powdercoat etc..

old_alfie

Nobody has mentioned the appearance differences between steel frames and the lighter materials.

The lighter materials apparently require more material to equal the strength of steel so the tubes end up looking like well casings or Cessna wing struts.

I realize it's a personal thing but for myself, I kinda like the small diameter tubing look of old steel bikes.
alf

bigbossman 

Ok, EXCEPTING boutique frames. Better? In general, it is true and I stand by my statement.

For your average run-of-the-mill 531/Columbus production frame, you can find those all over for a few hundred dollars. For the $500 in your example, I can lay my hands on any one of a dozen high quality steel frames, and have money left over.

bbattle

What sort of riding do you want to do?

Wino Ryder

Like the way you say that;...average, run of the mill 531/Columbus production frame.

..sorta cheapens Reynolds 531 and Columbus down to gas pipe status.

lotek 

One point, aluminium bikes have been around for quite a while. Carminargent and Barra built Al bikes
in the 1930's. There has been a good discussion of this on CR list recently. I believe the first Al bikes were
actually produced towards the turn of the century (no, not Y2K!) . The other materials (CF and Ti) were first seen in the mid to late 70s (teledyne Titan, Speedwell, Exxon Graftek etc.) but those materials didn't come into their own until I'd say the 90's.

Marty

spider-man

I'd argue that aluminium didn't come into its own as a frame material until at least the late '70s either. It certainly wasn't embraced in my neck of the woods until then. I've never seen a Caminargent or Barra in person.

lotek 

And I think that might be more due to outside influences like world war II, early aeronautics, and economics.
Aluminium was quite expensive compared to steel which was proven, and easy to manufacture.
I too have never seen a Carminargent or Barra but that doesn't mean the material hadn't been in use.
On a commercial level I have no argument with the mid to late 80's for Al, and Cannondale and Klein were
probably most responsible for that.
I'm just saying that Aluminium for a frame material has been in use for a lot longer than we generally think.

marty

spider-man

I'm willing to go along with that. It is interesting that the French were able to enlighten us, so to speak, with aluminium cranks and rims, and even saddle rails, and their AL frames did not meet with the same commercial success. Putting steel rims on a road bike now would be unthinkable.

iab

Hey now, don't forget the Italians. Ambrosio for one was making aluminum stems, bars and rims in the 30s along with other Italian manufacturers. I also believe Ambrosio made a few frames out of aluminum but I have never seen an example.

Frames have a disadvantage of needing a much greater engineering prowess to create a good weight to strength ratio. There were not many aluminum alloy choices in the 30s as there was in the 70s and as Marty eluded, I suspect economics were the greatest inhibition to the development of aluminum frames.

Bikedued

It is for me! To me most bikes made after 94 or so are just plain ugly, everything started turning black? Hubs, rims, stems, cable housings etc. All these newer sculpted looking CF frames do nothing for me. Most of my like for steel stems from the time period in which is was used, and the styling that accompanied it. The ride is a pleasant bonus, and I just feel safer on steel. That may be just my perception. I had one early 90's aluminum Raleigh road bike, and it rode very stiff. At the time I attributed that to the 23c tires that it had when I found it, but now I realize it was just plain stiff and unforgiving. I do have other alloy bikes, but most of them also have fat tires which cancels out the ride for the most part.,,,,BD

bigbossman 

I'll go along with that. Blacked out trim all the way around is so..... pedestrian. I had a b!tch of a time trimming out my three recent builds comepletely in silver. Modern silver threadless stems are limited, as are bars. You can find them, but you have to search - everything is black.

John E

I do a fair amount of solo transportation and recreational cycling, and I ride 2 to 3 hours every weekend with a club. I like the look, the ride quality, the durability, and the adaptability of a classic lugged steel frame. Since the only downside of my steel-framed bikes is an insignificant 1 to 3 kg of additional static mass, I have absolutely no urge to rush out and spend $1-3K for a high-quality new bicycle. I distrust carbon fiber for safety reasons, and I have heard of too many early failures of aluminum frames to inspire much confidence.

luker

I've ridden an aluminum bike since '85, and my first (and only) CF bike since '91. I did rip the derailleur hanger off of the '85 and have to get a new one in '86, but I've fallen off numerous times since then and have never destroyed either bike. They are suitably durable for me. Those bikes are both Treks, and have very nearly exactly the same geometry - the CF bike is much lighter, and makes odd thrumming noises that aluminum bikes and steel bikes don't make, but otherwise I have a hard time telling the two apart.

BBM sez: the wheels, the tires, the saddle. He's right. Except for weight. CF wins, hands down. The weight weenies are poopooing sixteen pound bikes nowadays.

Steel feels, um, springier to me, and although I can't identify exactly why I like it, I like it in general better than either CF or aluminum.

Titanium, now, that is clearly different. I've ignored it for years, thinking it was clearly the rich yuppie material, but I have friends that just will not ride anything else. I have never tried it. I'm saving my pennies though, because I'd like to.

Bikedued

There's a Merlin at my LBS with the ?laser? cut graphics? It's only 6 grand...,,,,BD

luker

yeah. I gotta find a vintage one, though, because I wanna use downtube shifters with it.