dr_lha

A better question would be, why do people keep bringing up CF and Aluminum, in a thread titled "Titanium vs Steel 2015"?

Wilfred Laurier

I don't know. Why did you?

dr_lha

I was merely responding to someone else who did, as you well know. And that was only because they made a sweeping generalization about people who choose to buy steel or Titanium bikes.

rpenmanparker 

I understand your point, but I don't see how you can say an alternate opinion is irrelevant. If you dismiss my assertion, then you are essentially saying that people choose steel for its ride...whether the ride is better or not. Okay, I am sure some of that happens, but how smart is that?

RJM

Mystical experience is clearly hyperbole, but it really depends on what they are going for with the bike. A 6 lb frame doesn't automatically make a crappy feeling bike especially if you aren't racing it. Geometry matters more than frame material and weight. My Riv fully built up ready to ride weighs in at 19.5 lbs and it sings on the road. It is the best riding bike I've ever ridden and it isn't confirmation bias. That doesn't mean that some other maker working in carbon isn't making great riding bikes too.

Wilfred Laurier

I never said that a 6 lb frame would give a crappy ride. My point was that there is no generalization that should be made that one frame material is better than another because, like you said, geometry matters more than frame material or weight.

RJM

That's actually goes counter to what Jah Heine concluded in his tests which are documented on his blog and magazine.

dr_lha

People on internet forums tell me that I am deluded to think that steel frame bikes provide any benefit over aluminum. I chose my steel frame because I liked the ride quality of a lightweight steel frame bike. Could a CF or Aluminum bike give me a better ride quality? Maybe so, not the ones I've ridden, but I've not ridden every frame and every bike available. I don't think I'm deluded, but I'm aware many on this forum do think that.

Again, the only thing I was really debating here was the idea that people choose steel for looks. All the guys I know who ride steel tell me they ride steel because they like the ride feel of a steel bike. If people on internet forums choose to think they are deluded, I don't think they really care.

D1andonlyDman

Problem is, you want lateral stiffness, but vertical compliance. Aluminum is stiff both laterally and vertically - it has to be or it will fatigue - and that's why the ride is far less comfortable than with other frame materials. All of the above between Ti, Steel, and CF, can be engineered to be compliant vertically without compromising lateral stiffness.

My carbon bike, a Trek Y-foil, is at least as comfortable as my best steel bikes. It's also a bit faster than my steel bikes on climbs, because it's lighter by around 3-4 pounds. But it SOUNDS and feels creaky, compared to my Tommasini and Paramount, which sound and feel like precision instruments. As I'm not riding competitively, but for exercise and enjoyment, this is actually an issue that affects the pleasure I get out of riding.

rpenmanparker 

Not exactly. Lateral and vertical stiffness can be (and actually are) adjusted separately by virtue of tube shaping either through just simple bi-planar ovalization or hydroforming.

dr_lha

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Steel is better than CF. That would be silly of me, I've barely ridden any CF bikes. I probably shouldn't have included CF in my post above.

D1andonlyDman

Not very effectively, though as aluminum frames are vertically stiffer, and less comfortable than other materials. And Aluminum is almost completely worthless as a fork material as a result.

rpenmanparker 

I dunno. Some very savvy bike riders extol the virtues of bikes like the Cannondale CAAD 10 and the Specialized Secteur. I think you are unfairly downplaying the tremendous advancements that have been made in aluminum frame efficiency AND comfort.

Trakhak

Quote Originally Posted by Trakhak View Post
In a famous Bicycle Guide magazine comparison in which a frame builder (Mondonico, if I remember correctly) constructed a series of high-end-steel frames that were identical in every way except for the tubesets used, the riders who tested the bikes built with those frames preferred the bike built with the heaviest-gauge (Columbus SP) tubing---i.e., the stiffest of the frames tested.

The article noted that the results of the test ran counter to the expectations of all involved, since it's almost universally assumed that lighter tubing equals more compliant frame equals more comfort equals superior ride.

It's heartening to see that a good proportion of the posters in this thread have moved beyond the assumption that the ride of steel and ti bikes is inherently superior to that of carbon and aluminum bikes. Speaking as one who has done lots of miles on pro-level steel bikes since the mid-'60s and on aluminum bikes since the mid-'00s, if I had to choose, I'd take my aluminum bikes over my steel bikes every time.

Correct. Thought-provoking, isn't it? At least, I hope so, for the betterment of this discussion. As the researchers conclude in almost every scientific article I edit, "More tests are needed."

Jarrett2

I had a 2013 Specialized Secteur. I'm not sure if that's when they started putting in the magic or not, but that bike was not anything I'd call smooth riding. It felt to me, just like every other AL bike I've owned and ridden. Very harsh or rough roads. The CF bikes I've owned and ridden all had a similar feel to them, smoother than AL. And likewise, all of the steel bikes I've owned and ridden have a similar feel to them, smoother than the AL or CF bikes I've owned and ridden.

My problem is the one titanium bike I've ridden felt like crap. It felt like an aluminum bike. It was a stiff and harsh compared to my Roubaix. The owner of the bike rode my Roubaix and confirmed that it was smoother feeling to him than his titanium bike. That said, his titanium bike was 12-15 years old, it had a crack in the seat tube that had recently been welded, and one not built by one of the bigger names in Titanium currently (it was an Airborne). I don't know if that model was built to be stiff and harsh like AL or not.

That said, everyone I talk to these days say that if you like riding steel, you will love riding modern titanium. They say it is lighter than steel, rides smoother than steel, never rusts, scratches can be cleaned up with steel wool and it will last forever. Last frame you need to buy, just swap out the groupset every 5 or so years and you're good to go. That's a hell of a marketing pitch. I'd like to know if it is actually true or not.

If it is, I'm ready to invest.

D1andonlyDman

Which of those has an aluminum fork? Neither one. And I've ridden those bikes - they are fast, but they are not as comfortable as my carbon fiber Trek Y-Foil or my steel Tommasini.

ZippyThePinhead

On a personal level-- not a scientific/controlled experiment level-- I find it is difficult to compare the ride quality of steel vs. titanium because there are too many variables in play. For example, I have a 1983 SR Semi-Pro, which is made with Champion #2 tubes, and it rolls on 27x1-1/4 Gatorskins (a reasonably fat tire for a road bike). Great bike, I like riding it. I also have a 2010 BD Motobecane Le Champ Ti, which rolls on 700X25C Gatorskins. It is my main road bike ride at this point. The frames have a different geometry (level top tube vs. sloping top tube), are equipped with different saddles, different bars, and so forth. All of these differences make it difficult to compare ride quality on an apples-to-apples basis.

Even Sheldon Brown says as much. What I would really like to see is a Velo News-type evaluation of similar metal-framed bicycles: steel, titanium, etc., in similar sizes. Something similar to this, but more comprehensive. Sheldon Brown has data on a single deflection test, but the way it is reported makes it hard to see meaningful trends.

sced

It's obvious there is a total lack of agreement among a lot of knowledgeable/experienced people, so it's safe to conclude that material type doesn't really matter. It;s ok to completely dismiss its consideration when searching for the best bike "for you". Try a bunch of bikes and pick out the one or two you like best.

dr_lha

You should be a social scientist!

Jarrett2

I had ruled BD out because someone told that their Ti bikes would not accept a 25mm Gatorskin tire. Are you saying yours does with no problems/rubbing?

ZippyThePinhead

The information you received is incorrect, in my experience (maybe someone with a smaller size frame would have a different experience). You can use 700x25C Gatorskins, at least with my size of frame (53), and probably with the larger ones. But it is tight:

Jarrett2

Oh yeah, I remember seeing that pic. That is super close. No issues there?

Wondering if they made more space in the 2015 models.

rpenmanparker 

Um, not so fast on the steel wool thing. You have to have a brushed finish, and it has to be exactly the right steel wool or Scotch Brite pad. Every brushed finish from every manufacturer is different. And then there is some technique involved. Just picking up a pad and going after blemishes on your frame is very likely to really cock it up. You have to know what you are doing.

As far as the rest it is true of my 2006 (or so) Merlin Works CR. Most comfortable frame I have ever ridden and I can't find any flex. But then I am not looking very hard.

ZippyThePinhead

Call/email them (BD) and ask. I have never had issues with the 700x25C Gatorskins; it is the only tire I run on that bike. But they have made some changes since 2010, like the tapered steerer.

I did not like the Mavic Aksium Race wheels, however; too many broken spokes, which my LBS charges $20/each to repair. I upgraded to a more durable set of wheels as a result.

Jarrett2

I did. They said, "I do not know, we do not build custom orders."