old's'cool

Yes, indeed!

himespau 

I'd been meaning to post that, but couldn't find it.

jimmuller 

Should that be "laterally compliant, yet vertically stiff"? Or maybe the other way around, "vertically stiff, yet laterally compliant"?

I wonder if anyone could tell the difference in classic French frames with their slight smaller diameters. I have come to love my Motobecane. I'm not sure I could distinguish its tubing from the tubing of the Masi. But then, I don't actually hammer even when I'm trying to ride fast or far.

Scooper

I think most riders would agree with thinktubes that 'laterally stiff, yet vertically compliant' is preferable to 'vertically stiff, yet laterally compliant'...

A bike that's vertically compliant offers a smoother ride, soaking up road buzz and minor potholes; a bike that's vertically stiff can rattle your bones and teeth.

A bike that's laterally stiff corners precisely and with confidence; a bike that's laterally 'compliant' can have mushy and unpredictable handling when cornering.

jimmuller 

I should have added one of these to my note.

Scooper

Ahh...

crank_addict

Not much to add here, but would think the only fair comparison is having the identical components, wheels and tires on both frames. Test ride each in a 100 mile, identical route in a mixed surface plus hills.

No sense getting into the talk of the obvious improvements one can make with an vintage frame (ie: wheels / build, tires, fork, bars).

Do I think the new steel is better? The technology has certainly improved. Those True Temper S-3 shaped Rodriquez frames in the 2 1/2 lbs is impressive. Would love to try one someday.

mechanicmatt

Well my butt-o-meter would say this. Whatever geometry fits you first will feel the best period, then go on to the metals. I ride a Reynolds 531 Trek and a 520 Jamis quite often, they "fit" me the best, and have ridden over the years True Temper OX, T-1, OX Platinum, Reynolds 501, 853, 753, and Tange Prestige in both lugged and TIG welded forms. The only frames I have ridden that reached the level of "unicorn" on my butt-o-meter were a fairly modern TIG welded Lemond Wayzata with 853 tubing (borrowed), and an old, heavy Trek 500 with lugged Reynolds 501 tubing (sold off). I think it was the right mix of fit and the gifts of the welder and material that made those feel amazing. So I think it is completely subjective.

jimmuller 

Actually, I was thinking of "stiffly compliant, yet laterally vertical", I think.

Jeff Wills

You just pegged the weird-stuff-o-meter.

Dave Cutter

I've found even bikes that measure near identical in setup and are made of seemingly the same materials can have completely different levels of comfort. I think this antidotal tidbit applies here.... I've found that 40cm handlebars to be acceptable but not as comfortable as 42cm. And I've found that 44cm handlebars to actually cause pain in my neck and shoulders. Fit does matter.

jimmuller 

Moving that particular meter wasn't the the prime intent, but it was an admittedly predictable side effect. I should explain, for it does have a bearing on this thread.

Sometimes phrases take on lives of their own (especially in sports - "take it to the next level", "do some damage", "raise the bar", "up my game"). They compactly express ideas that would take more than a few words if expressed literally. But when they become too commonplace they often become a substitute for the real thing; we all "know what they mean". Except that sometimes we really don't. Or when we do we still miss the myriad details behind them. This is especially true when it comes to accomplishing something difficult. "I just have to <do the phrase>" as if it were a shortcut to doing all the things that make doing the phrase possible.

The phrase "laterally stiff, yet vertically compliant" is, to me at least, a good example. It does compactly express an important idea. It expresses a goal we can all understand. It doesn't say doodlysquat about how to make it happen though. This thread's prime question is whether newer steel bikes could be better than great old ones, and implied in that question is the followup, if they are better then why?

Round tubes are equally stiff in all directions, oval ones are not. Fatter tubes are stiffer than skinny ones, all other things being equal. Joints are as stiff or compliant as the joining method allows. Straight rods or tubes don't compress easily but can be flexed. Butted sections can be chosen longer or shorter, thicker or thinner. These details make up the frame and give it its properties. An experienced builder can do great things with old or new materials, and the key question is how. Explaining it by saying "laterally stiff, yet vertically compliant" is equivalent to saying "it is better". So I was poking fun at the phrase and point out that it ain't that simple.

To me, the real questions are "Do any current builders make bikes as good or better than the great older ones?" and "If so, what are they doing to make them so good?" The first answer is probably yes, just as there were great and not so great builders in the steel-bike era, and of course they now have newer materials. The second answer is harder. A builder's decision process is probably no different now as then, and it probably can't be expressed compactly.

RobbieTunes

Do not despair. A Columbus fan, I am currently, regularly, swapping in a classic steel (1987 SLX), an "older" carbon (2004 Super Muscle) and a new steel (2014 Life) on the same route, with the same sense of needing to get the ride over with. The pace doesn't vary much, a bike is a bike. I am not riding my '84 Lotus regularly, because it's a pretty girl and she doesn't like to get dirty.

All I can tell you is my experience, like Chrome Molly above.

They are different. None is better.

The '87 steel Columbus SLX frame/fork is smooth as silk, quiet, predictable, and quick enough, agile enough, and stable. It is not pinpoint precise, but it goes exactly where you steer it. There is some flex in the fork on a 100-degree corner I hit at the bottom of a hill: it's a good test of forks and the stability of the front end of a bike. (not to mention tire grip). In that corner, you stick it on your line and it tracks right through. You can see the wheel try to get a little closer to the fork, but nowhere near touching. I don't notice the weight, about 22 lbs. It is very comfortable: 64-42 bars, Cinelli stem, Bontrager Inform RL saddle on Miche Primato seatpost, SRAM gel wrap. Anything longer than 75 miles, I prefer this bike. I just do. My mind thinks about "way down the road" and I want to be on this one, cruising in at the end. Aluminum wheels, clincher tires (700x25's).

The '14 steel Columbus Life frame/Columbus FEL carbon fork is smooth as satin, not as quiet, definitely predictable, quick, agile, and stable. It is pinpoint precise, and you stick it and forget it. There is no flex in the fork I can find in my cornering, and I can really lean it over. It's in the low 16-lb range, and the head tube is 1.5" to 1.125". Very stiff up front, and an excellent climber, probably due to weight issues. If I used a softer saddle, it would likely be as comfortable as the '87 SLX, but it's much easier to move off-line. It's comfortable but more agressive: Zipp SL2 bars/stem, Romin saddle, Thomson post, Gecko wrap. Whenever we plan to go hard, even metric centuries, I choose this one. I plan to use it in crits, and I like it for sprint triathlons, full-on going hard. Carbon wheels, hard durable tubulars.

The '04 Columbus Super Muscle carbon frame/fork is smooth but quite willing to move around if you do. It's quiet, for carbon, and a little more agile than the new steel, just less stable on the front end. This is likely due to 10-year old carbon tech on the fork and a 1.125" headset, instead of the beefier taper. While it's a pound lighter than the modern steel, I don't notice it. It's my choice for triathlon legs over 25 miles, because I can really stay on it, harder, longer, and not think about discomfort. I also think it seems easier to go fast on, when I'm tired. Not sure why. It is as comfortable as the '87, but it should be; I didn't outfit it to be harsh: SSM Concor Light saddle, Columbus carbon seat post, Easton carbon bars, KCNC scandium stem, Cinelli Red Hook wrap. I could go lighter on the saddle, and less thick on the wrap, but it's my butt, those are my hands, and I like it that way. Carbon wheels, supple racing tubulars.

A change in wheelset/tires/psi would make any of them different, I'm sure.
I can't see banging around on gravel on the '87, or using it for cyclocross, so I'm waiting on another new steel frame to build.

Do I think the guy who built my modern steel can produce a better frame than my '87? Not if he has to duplicate the tubing and geometry. I'm sure he can do the lugwork and the brazing. I'm sure he can produce a frame that does all that the '87 does, and be as comfortable, and smooth. If I tell him what I want the bike to do, I'm sure he can produce a frame equal to the task. There's just no reason to do that.

When I think about C&V steel frames, I'm considering frames already made, and I have to accept what they are.
When I think about ordering a modern custom steel frame, I'm considering what I want, and how the builder can make it for me.
There's a real cart/horse difference in that.

I am not familiar with the modern production-type steel frames, but the Breezer's appear to be pretty nice.

The only thing that interests me right now, to be an impulse buy, would be an older Primus Mootry frame.

Jeff Wills

Here's the problem with what you're describing: the frames are different, true. But the equipment, especially the tires, is also different. So what it really creating the differences in what you're feeling? Also, do those differences in "feeling" translate to real differences in performance?

gaucho777 

But it was a good looking bike! I love the capella lugs on it.

gaucho777 

I wish I had more experience with modern steel to offer much input. In terms of vintage steel, I've owned Reynolds 501, 531 butted, 753r, Tange Champion, Tange Prestige, Columbus SL, I****awa something or other, gaspipe, and also titanium. I've tried a modern Cinelli SC with a modern variation of Columbus, maybe Neuron tubing? I will say that it felt stiff and the bike (equipped with modern Campy 10s) was indeed lighter than any of my vintage steel bikes, but I didn't have enough opportunity to put it through it's paces to offer a meaningful comparison.

If money wasn't an option, I would love to try a custom frame with all-day racer geometry (probably near identical geometry as my Look Bernard Hinault) in the UOS version of PegoRichie tubing: Über OverSize ? ÜOS ? A Real Game Changer | RICHARD SACHS CYCLES

gomango

I'm with you on Sax Max.

Quick article.

thewashingmachinepost :: velo club d'ardbeg :: robert millar :: societa colnago



Beautiful example of Sax Max.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/356851...n/photostream/

[IMG]IMG_3631 by curt_goodrich, on Flickr[/IMG]

RobbieTunes

There is no "problem" with what I described. It's a description, not a thesis. I'm not sure where you got "feeling" out of a post that doesn't use the word.

There is no claim being made as to equality or superiority; my post is simply a comparison of 3 different bikes, and yes, the equipment that matters in some aspects of physical ride quality. (The only reason I listed seat post, saddle, stem, bars, wrap, wheels, tires)

Since you used "feeling" in quotes, let me explain, if you haven't been able to figure it out, that I'm describing the way the bike's characteristics relay differences in stiffness, geometry, weight, and handling, communicated through the contact points, to my physical receptor points. In other words, answering the question "how does it ride?" as if it was asked. I believe the OP asked about differences, and I gave them by describing the steel and the ride, and the build components that matter.

It can easily be deduced from the short answer I gave that "equality" would be difficult, i.e. "they are different."
I then go on to explain further, in terms I understand myself, and hope that others do, as well.

I am not describing emotions. Many factors would go into the emotional aspect of a ride.
If the bike cost too much, if I got laid that morning, if I was still cuckoo from Cocoa Puffs, etc.
Definite factors in how the ride "feels," I suppose, some more than others, I'm sure.

Perhaps you don't understand, or actually think you do, the things I've written.
Read into my post what you want, but you are incorrect in your assumption.

I was not trying to satisfy some need you have for information, nor would I.
You need to look elsewhere for your answers, or pose your own questions in your own post, perhaps.

gomango

Straight talk.

sced

"if you can feel a pea through twenty mattresses you might notice a difference in feel"

This sums up my take on practically everything. I have 4 rideable bikes right now and while they share no common parts and the frames are completely different, kind of like my kids, I like them all for what they are.

Bikes are systems and ascribing most of what constitutes as "ride quality" just to the frame does not make sense to me. Even pro racers have little choice in what they ride because it's up to the deals made with their team's sponsors.

jyl

That is quite a range of weights. Low 16 lbs for a steel frame, wow.

D1andonlyDman

But considering that a Columbus SLX frame and fork typically weighs 5-5.5 pounds in less than the bigger sizes, and the modern frame + fork probably weighs a bit over 3 pounds, at least half of that difference is in the newer wheels and components, not the frame.

Scooper

Are you saying there exists a steel frameset (frame and fork) that weighs "a bit over 3 pounds?"

D1andonlyDman

No, I should have said: That the newest, lightest steel frames+forks certainly weigh at least 3 pounds, and probably more.

The point I was trying to make is that, at most, these newest steel frames (+forks) are, at the very lightest, no more than a couple of pounds lighter than a similar size Columbus SLX frame. So, if a new steel bike weighs 6 pounds less than a classic Columbus SLX bike, that the biggest portion of that weight savings is due to lighter modern wheels and components, as opposed to the frame itself. Put the same stuff that's on the modern 16 pound steel bike onto the SLX frame and it would be under 18 pounds.

Chrome Molly

My bikes are equipped very much the same. I really do attribute the difference in performance to the frame/fork/stem more than any other factor. The bikes ride on the same tires (though I just switched to try different tires on the older bike), and they have wheels that are the same weight. If anything the wheels on the 85 trek out perform the ones on the new custom. Outwardly, they are the same bikes, of the same size, with roughly equivalent components (I actually find the rival shifters more responsive than the campy ones, though they are about equally comfortable).

In the end, the new bike is consistently about a half a mph faster on sub 2 hours rides. Trust me, I hammer on both of them with just slightly different results. Worth the cost for that small difference? I'm happy I have the new one, but appreciate the old one.