Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-10-11, 07:26 AM   #1
BattleRabbit
Anachronist.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Albany, NY
Bikes: 1981 Schwinn Le Tour, 2010 Motobecane Sprint
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.


Isn't it pretty?
BattleRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 08:47 AM   #2
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Bikes:
Posts: 6,375
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
canam73 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 12:17 PM   #3
Binxsy
Senior Member
 
Binxsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South Central Minnesota
Bikes: 79 Peugeot UO8, 89 Peugeot Triathlon, 170$ Possibly a Raliegh Cross bike that I can kick your ass on...
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Carbon is the devil....
Binxsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 12:18 PM   #4
Binxsy
Senior Member
 
Binxsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South Central Minnesota
Bikes: 79 Peugeot UO8, 89 Peugeot Triathlon, 170$ Possibly a Raliegh Cross bike that I can kick your ass on...
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also this site just scares me......
http://www.bustedcarbon.com/
Binxsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 01:02 PM   #5
canopus 
Senior Member
 
canopus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kingwood, TX
Bikes: 1985 Cannondale SR300, 1985 Cannondale ST400, 1984 Trek 760, 1984 Trek 610, 1984 Trek 720, 1981 Trek 710, 1979 Trek 710, Gary Littlejohn Cruiser, BMX
Posts: 1,218
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...
__________________
1984 Cannondale ST
1985 Cannondale SR300
1980 Gary Littlejohn Cruiser
1984 Trek 760
1981 Trek 710
Pics
canopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 01:19 PM   #6
sced
South Carolina Ed
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greer, SC
Bikes: Family pool bikes - 73 Holdsworth Super Mistral, 79(?) Macario, 86 Bianchi Brava, 93 Viner Nemo, 07 Bottecchia Euro Team, 07 Windsor Fens, 07 Tommasso Mistral
Posts: 3,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Maybe a good deal on a modern steel frame: http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product...1_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.
sced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 02:35 PM   #7
sailorbenjamin 
26 tpi nut.
 
sailorbenjamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island (an obscure suburb of Connecticut)
Bikes: one of each
Posts: 5,698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Do CF bikes get stuck seatposts?
__________________
I have spoken.
sailorbenjamin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 03:46 PM   #8
robtown
Muscle bike design spec
 
robtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sterling VA
Bikes: 70 Atala Record Proffesional, 00 Lemond, 08 Kestrel Evoke, 96 Colnago Master Olympic, 01 Colnago Ovalmaster, 76 Raleigh Gran Sport, 03 Fuji World, 86 Paramount, 90 Miyata CF, 09 Ritchey Breakaway CX, Bianchi Trofeo, 12 OutRiderUSA HyperLite
Posts: 3,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorbenjamin View Post
Do CF bikes get stuck seatposts?
I've had problems with CF seatposts slipping / dropping into the seat tube.
__________________
Korval is Ships
See my Hyperlite 411 it's the photo model on OutRiderUSA web page
robtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 05:05 PM   #9
Binxsy
Senior Member
 
Binxsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South Central Minnesota
Bikes: 79 Peugeot UO8, 89 Peugeot Triathlon, 170$ Possibly a Raliegh Cross bike that I can kick your ass on...
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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???
Binxsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 05:06 PM   #10
BattleRabbit
Anachronist.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Albany, NY
Bikes: 1981 Schwinn Le Tour, 2010 Motobecane Sprint
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by canopus View Post
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.
BattleRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 05:11 PM   #11
Puget Pounder
Wookie Jesus inspires me.
 
Puget Pounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Puget Pounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 06:45 PM   #12
old's'cool 
curmudgineer
 
old's'cool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW burbs
Bikes: 2 many 2 fit here
Posts: 3,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sced View Post
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?
__________________
Geoff
"I think that I think, therefore I think that I am"
old's'cool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 06:58 PM   #13
BattleRabbit
Anachronist.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Albany, NY
Bikes: 1981 Schwinn Le Tour, 2010 Motobecane Sprint
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by old's'cool View Post
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.
BattleRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 07:45 PM   #14
mazdaspeed
Senior Member
 
mazdaspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WA state
Bikes:
Posts: 4,816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mazdaspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 07:53 PM   #15
John E
feros ferio
 
John E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Bikes: 1959 Capo; 1980 Peugeot PKN-10; 1981 Bianchi; 1988 Schwinn KOM-10;
Posts: 17,163
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
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.
__________________
"Early to bed, early to rise. Work like hell, and advertise." -- George Stahlman
Capo [dschaw'-poe]: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger, S/N 42624
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1981 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
John E is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 09:21 PM   #16
gioscinelli 
Ride Fast and Ride Safe!
 
gioscinelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Bikes: 85 Gios Torino Professional-95 Cinelli Supercorse-97 Merlin Extralight-06 Colnago C50-71 Peugeot PX 10-74 Peugeot Mixtie U018-73 Peugeot U018
Posts: 1,196
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
__________________
85 Gios Professional-95 Cinelli SC-97 Merlin Extralight-06 Colnago C 50-74 Peugeot Mixte-73 Peugeot Mixte
gioscinelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 09:24 PM   #17
RobbieTunes 
Idiot Pro Tempo
 
RobbieTunes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NC
Bikes: at Pedal Room
Posts: 20,578
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
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.
__________________

Robbie ♪♫♪...☻

Friends don't let friends drink and wrench.

1985 Raleigh Competition Racing USA Series-Coleman made me do it.....
1987 Bridgestone Radac - Aluminum (sadly, the frame is toast, RD hanger snapped off)
1988 Centurion Dave Scott Ironman Master - Steel
1989 Centurion Carbon-R - Carbon Fiber

http://www.pedalroom.com/members/RobbieTunes
RobbieTunes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 09:37 PM   #18
DRietz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 2,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
DRietz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 10:04 PM   #19
Puget Pounder
Wookie Jesus inspires me.
 
Puget Pounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRietz View Post
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
Puget Pounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 10:34 PM   #20
BattleRabbit
Anachronist.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Albany, NY
Bikes: 1981 Schwinn Le Tour, 2010 Motobecane Sprint
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
BattleRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 10:39 PM   #21
mazdaspeed
Senior Member
 
mazdaspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WA state
Bikes:
Posts: 4,816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mazdaspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 10:53 PM   #22
rothenfield1
Senior Member
 
rothenfield1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montereyish
Bikes:
Posts: 2,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazdaspeed View Post
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.
rothenfield1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 11:02 PM   #23
mazdaspeed
Senior Member
 
mazdaspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WA state
Bikes:
Posts: 4,816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rothenfield1 View Post
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.
mazdaspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 11:13 PM   #24
BattleRabbit
Anachronist.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Albany, NY
Bikes: 1981 Schwinn Le Tour, 2010 Motobecane Sprint
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
BattleRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-11, 11:17 PM   #25
mazdaspeed
Senior Member
 
mazdaspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WA state
Bikes:
Posts: 4,816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mazdaspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:04 PM.