AS Collie

I was just listening to an old (two episodes ago, I think) Rouleur podcast, and they very quickly touched on the the likelihood of a pro riding on a steel or alu frame sometime in the future.

It got me thinking about the UCI's minimum weight restrictions etc, and about the merits (if there are any) for those at the top of the sport to consider using anything other than carbon. I remember Boonen riding a re-badged Pegoretti, and Gilbert on an alu Canyon, but are there other examples? I recently saw a custom stainless frame – that was huge, the rider must be almost 6'6" – and the owner claimed the weight on it was around 7.5kg. Given that a) most pros are not that tall, so the frames would be smaller, b) I'm sure he coulda shaved off some more grams without too much effort if weight was the only issue and c) I'm not sure if stainless steel tubes are any heavier but there might be lighter options out there, the UCI min of 6.8kg would have been easily achievable.

Does anyone know anything more about this? Or some opinions?

Bacciagalupe

Don't know, don't care.

Any frame used by a pro is going to be as good as any other frame option. The odds that a rider today would genuinely win a race because of the bike, bike frame, or frame material is close to zero.

The needs of, and mechanical support offered to, a pro is so different than my needs that I don't use them as a model for what would work best for me.

And of course, riders use bikes that are being pushed by the sponsor. As long as CF has better margins and a little more designer control than metal, I'd expect the sponsors will continue to push CF.


On an unrelated note, I don't think it'd be that difficult to get a metal bike down to 15 pounds. E.g. Jamis has a mass-produced steel bike with an advertised 17 pound weight, using Reynolds 853, Ultegra, and aluminum rims for around $3400. For a mere $9500, you can get their ultralight CF bike which weighs 13.75 pounds. (That's $1800 per pound saved.) I'm reasonably confident that if you dropped $10,000 on a metal bicycle, it'll weigh in pretty close to 13.75 pounds....

AS Collie

It wasn't really a "I wanna know what they're using so I can follow suit" question; I was just curious. I've gone the custom frame option and been called crazy for it by some buddies, but it's cost me the same amount as a mid-level carbon bike and thanks to some hand-built wheels and a good deal on a Chorus gruppo and various components, it weighs about the same.

We get about six hours of Giro coverage a day on TV here in Italy, followed by "classic giro" stuff, so I'm probably just on overload right now!

fxdgrjedi

I wish... Steel is real.

It would actually be cool if there was a legit pro-level race that required the use of period bikes with downtube shifters. Kindof a retro-throwback race like the Eroica but more PRO. It would be so cool to see all the big names riding classic frames and bars.

canam73

Well, I think they would just be going to slow for it to be at all interesting.

chasm54

You're almost certainly mistaken about that. Speeds have increased remarkably little since Merckx et al, (they've fallen back slightly in the GTs since gross EPO abuse has been more likely to be detected) and some of that will be down to factors other than CF frames.

Reynolds 953 stainless is supposed to have weight/strength properties similar to Ti and to be stiffer. I'd be surprised if one couldn't come up with a 953 bike at or close to the UCI weight limit. But it may be immaterial anyway, because I hear that under pressure from the manufacturers, the UCI is considering lowering or abandoning the weight restriction.

jimc101

Why would any pro rider need to add weight, with Carbon frames they are designed to be stiff / compliant where needed, and even if the complete bike is below the minimum UCI weight, there is always the powermeter to add / replace the crank with to bring it up again, in the future no doubt there wil also be onboard cameras like in motorsport to add some more.

Also with steel you have very narrow tubes, so very little advertising space, with carbon the tubes are much wider, giving plenty of advertising space, can't see the teams / sponsors wanting to loose this either.

Bacciagalupe

FYI, a Tarmac SL4 frame is around 4.3 lbs. I have no doubt a well-designed aluminum, titanium, and possibly even steel can get into the same weight class. Aluminum could probably hit the same stiffness in different locations, not sure about ti or steel.


Hydroformed aluminum tubing gets fairly close to the same shapes as CF; plenty of space on those downtubes for manufacturer names.

I'm sure if there was some financial advantage to selling high-end steel or alloy over CF, some major team sponsor would consider it.

chasm54

The Colnago Master X-lite frame, which is steel and has been around for 30 years, weighs about 1350g or a fraction under 3lbs.

berner

I know nothing about the Rodriguez Outlaw but it sure is light enough to be competitive. https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html

chasm54

That's interesting. I saw a Trek Project One 6 series at my LBS yesterday, built up with DuraAce, and despite being under the UCI limit it was heavier than that. Just about the same price as the SRAM-equipped Rodriguez, too.

LemondFanForeve

Wait...arent A NUMBER of riders still riding on alu frames? I dont "get" what you're wondering...

Alu frames didnt "all of a sudden" just disappear on the tour, Im sure there are many who still ride it?

AS Collie

Sorry, but "a NUMBER"? If you know of a top level rider using, please share. That's what I was asking.

I didn't say anything was "all of a sudden"; I asked because I can't see any alu – certainly not any Ti or steel – these days. As I mentioned, I remember Boonen on a steel re-badged pegoretti a few years back, but I can't see any alu in this year's Giro. Was it used in a classic?

ultraman6970

I been watching races and never seen an aluminum frame moving around in the last 4 yeas in the pro tours. Aluminum frames are nice specially for climbing but the issue is that after 5 hours i'm sure you don't want to start the stage next day at all

Lance armstrong used to use a Ti litespeed re badged as trek back in the day, others like the kaiser were using custom made carbon bikes repainted it aswell.

If the UCI dont change the rules about weight pretty much the development of lite bikes makes non sense at all so wouldnt surprise me if they change the rules again or something.

About the speeds? speeds are almost the same, is not that the guys are going like 15 km/h faster, if there is an improve at least in speed is just minimum, but bikes are way more comfortable than back in the day.

Just look at the record books, guys have been riding 60 km/h in the flats since like 50 years ago if not more.

whitemax

[QUOTE
but bikes are way more comfortable than back in the day.

I would argue that steel bikes of the 80's were as comfortable or even more so than the carbon bikes of today.

chasm54

So would I. I recently acquired a 1984 Raleigh made of Reynolds 531. It's the most comfortable bike I own, which is saying quite a lot, because I am comfortable on all of them. Rides like a magic carpet.

slcbob

I'm on my couch because it's comfortable. I'm pretty sure they're on CF because it's stiff and they win more that way, comfort be damned.

Perhaps a specialist pave bike?

AS Collie

It does seem the most likely place to find one.

I've noticed recently that a lot of the riders have gone back to low-profile rims on the front, probably for bike handling reasons. The manufacturers no doubt preferred the advertising space offered by deep rims, but I know what I'd rather have on my bike. It's all in flux, I suppose.

chasm54

Personally I'm unconvinced that very stiff frames are any faster, in a road race, than less stiff ones. On the track, especially sprinting, sure. You need instantaneous response there. But on the road? I don't think one loses much, if any, energy on a springier frame. It seems to me it's pretty much a closed system, the energy used to flex the frame will help propel the next pedal stroke as the frame recoils.

catonec 

winning races isnt about the bicycle components or the materials its made from. it all comes down to the heart and commitment of the rider.

Commodus

CF frames are cheaper to mass produce, so they are always going to be the preferred option for the manufacturers. And the point of racing is to advertise stuff they want to sell, so...

Although there have been guys racing alu last few years. I don't think anyone this year though.

GrayJay

Bike company sponsorship to pro teams has become much bigger and their technical support to the teams is much more important than back in the days where a rider could get away with riding a custom bike re-painted to match team graphics. I am pretty sure that the bike sponsors these days would have a fit if their sponsored riders were not actually on thier bikes.
The economics are such that the profit margin on high end CF bikes is so much higer than for steel bikes which require tremendous amounts of craftmanship labor to produce. I cannot think of a single high-end steel bike company with enough sales these days to justify sponsoring a full-pro team on high-end steel bikes in order to gain further market exposure for thier bikes. It would be hurting thier own financial best intrest for the big companies to suggest that steel is still a competitive material for frames.

slcbob

Yes. Right. In high school, maybe. Pro racing is a game of millimeters, grams, single digit watts of wind resistance, etc. Layered on top of the heart and commitment to get, stay, and succeed there. Don't dismiss either part of it.

catonec 

then hasnt carbon fiber proven itself technically advanced enough to be a material that can improve performance and efficiency, even just a little bit, that it should be the hands down, only option for a racing bike frame? so whats the debate about??

AS Collie

Not everything on a forum has to be a black and white debate! This is getting a little off topic now. I was just curious if anyone was able to point to examples of pros riding metal frames. All things being equal, which with the UCI limit at 6.9kg I'm sure they could be, I'm not sure a carbon frame would be any quicker over the passo stelvio than a modern steel one. Not discounting the merits of either, mind you; I can see the benefits in both materials. That said, the main benefit does seem to be to the producer, that is, carbon is cheaper and easier to produce and it offers more advertising space.