BillyD

Good idea.

Hiro11

redfooj

patiently awaiting mailberry23

Dan333SP

I like how this statement works with your signature telling people to think for themselves. Wait...

redfooj

frame material has as much an impact on the ride quality as cooktop - gas vs induction vs coil - does on the finished food.

btw i prefer gas.

sleepy

Because it's still cheaper than carbon.
Because it doesn't beat the crap out of me on a long ride like mile 88 on the old CAAD10.
Because it won't dent as easily like the aforementioned CAAD10.
Because I don't care about weight, I care about it's nice solid springy feel.
Because I can make it a single-speed, an STI equipped 10 speed, or just stick to Downtube shifters and a 6 speed freewheel.
Because it doesn't come in generic "colorways" covered in logos.
Because I can slap on outboard cranks, or an old fashioned cup 'n cone bottom brackets. none of this 10 versions of proprietary BB whatever crap.
Because it looks like a bicycle. Not a sculpted plastic aero-thing.

Dan333SP

Dan333SP

LOL the censor won't even allow images if that word is included in the url.

PepeM

noodle soup

same can be said for CF.

corrado33

So defensive. Did I hit a nerve? Did you miss the part where I said "there are exceptions to every rule, I'm speaking in generalities?"

Steel is more IMPACT resistant than carbon. Carbon can only get close if it's specifically built to resist impacts. (Bike frames are not...)

Yes, carbon CAN be stronger in terms of resisting flex and pressure in the direction that the carbon is laid. But IMPACTS? No.

THIS is not an impact test and is not testing the impact resistance of the material. It's testing mostly the flexural strength.

THIS IS an impact test, and it tests a bunch of different material properties of the specimens.

(Now waiting for the "But the carbon fiber did the best" comments.)

rpenmanparker 

Your real name isn't Rip Van Winkel,is it? Where ya been?

winston63 

That sounds like a great project, and I really like the look of that frame. One thing though: it appears that for 2017 Kona has changed up the steel lineup, and that bike is going to be simply called 'Tonk' (probably to get around forum censors ) but the website doesn't show it available as a frame any more. Not sure if that's an oversight or if it's only available as a complete build but you might want to grab a 2016 if you can.

noodle soup

here's another exception



Skip to the 5 minute mark if you want to see impact resistance

redfooj

take away lesson here is dont take a sharp chisel to your bike frame.

jsigone

cuz its heavy..

BillyD

Finally a reasonable, on-topic response. Thank you, sir!

silversx80

I've owned all the materials, and good steel/aluminum/carbon/titanium is good. Those materials can also make bad bikes due to poor design choices or poor quality control.

Currently I own a titanium and an aluminum road bike (Lynskey R240 and a CAAD10). The Lynskey currently sits on some Pacenti SL-23 wheels I built up myself, with Conti GP4000 tires in 25mm width. The CAAD is on the stock RS10 wheels with Schwable Luganos in 23mm width. Set up like that the Lynskey is definitely a better ride. Once put the Pacentis on the CAAD and the differences were almost unnoticed (the Ti is just a little smoother and less fatiguing).

velociraptor

I concur.

Enthusiastically.

rms13

It's real? Anti establishment? I really don't have a preference but having my current steel bike that's lighter then my stock TCR Advanced SL was is cool. And always fun to pass people climbing when they are on their fancy $10k carbon bikes

Jarrett2

I'm going to reply to this before reading the rest of the posts.

I started riding in town on an aluminum 2013 Specialized Secteur road bike. Same geometry and zertz as the Roubaix. Smooth roads and all was well. Completely happy with the bike. Once I outgrew city riding and wanted to ride from town to town, I started riding in the country on Texas' infamous chipseal roads.

If you are not familiar with chipseal, its an extremely cheap way to pave a road by essentially laying down gravel and tar. Fresh chipseal roads feel like bad gravel roads essentially. Over time car tires will press it down and smooth it out in the middle of the road, but the shoulder stays horrible.

When I started riding on chipseal with the aluminum Secteur, I started noticing some back pain and just a general fatigue after riding the bike that wasn't there before. Like I had been repeatedly punched in the kidneys. I went to my LBS and they suggested a new seatpost and bigger tires. That just slowed me down and did nothing for the ride quality.

I went back and they said go full carbon bike, so I did. Specialized Roubaix. Size size, same geometry as my Secteur but with smaller 25mm tires. It made a huge difference in comfort, but there was still sort of a rattly chatter to it as I rode on chipseal. I just assumed that was as good as it got and settled for it.

Flash forward, I bought a cheap Nashbar steel touring bike to try the touring thing. $800 I think, steel frame. One weekend, I went on a 3-day ride with my girlfriend. She wanted to ride the first day, but not the second or third. So my plan was to take the slow, steel touring bike to ride with her on day one and my uber cool, fast carbon fiber bike to do the rest of the rides.

So day 1 rolls around and I did the ride with her while I rode the cheap steel touring bike (w/25mm tires) all the while thinking, "man, these chipseal roads here are smoother than at home." Day 2 kicks off with me on my Roubaix (w/25mm tires) on the exact same roads and all the sudden they aren't as smooth anymore...

Based on that experience and several more back to back tests back home, I came to a painful realization. This cheap, outdated $800 steel touring bike was considerably more smooth riding on Texas chipseal roads than my $2500, uber cool, latest and greatest, Endurance geometry, smoothest carbon frame evah, Roubaix.

So then I thought, well steel weighs more, so it will slow me down. Then I weighed my Roubaix and found it was over 20 lbs. and that lots of modern steel framed bikes can be built in the 17-18 lb range fairly easily.

Flash forward again, expensive carbon bikes are gone. Garage is full of inexpensive, outdated steel framed bikes

There are plenty of other reasons I prefer steel, but the ride quality is the main one. It feels like nothing else.

corrado33

That was a very... scientific test, with no comparison to steel. This video shows exactly what I mentioned before. Carbon can be VERY strong, unilaterally, in the direction the carbon is laid.

Or a rock, or an asphalt edge, or a pothole, or a tree, or a root, or a branch....

Basically don't hit your carbon frame when it's loaded with anything. Basically don't crash... much.

Again, exceptions to every anecdote. I know there are people on here who have crashed plenty of times with their carbon frame and it's just fine. I also know plenty of people (personally) who have crashed ONCE with their carbon frame and had to replace it.

Carbon fiber is the indy car. Steel is the Bugatti. One is lightweight, fast, less comfortable, and relatively fragile, the other is heavy, fast, extremely comfortable, and sturdy.

Steel is good at everything. CF is good at being light, stiff, and strong. It's the highly specialized material that's very good at VERY specific things, but sacrifices are made because of it.

chong67

Anyone makes titanium bicycle? Its better than carbon, steel and aluminum.

rms13

Yes, there are dozens of titanium bike companies. And not it's not better then carbon, steel or aluminum. It's just different

noodle soup

Do you honestly believe that a steel frame would have preformed well in that last "test"?