tcarl

Stiff, fast and responsive are, in my opinion, functions of frame geometry. Ignore the second post on this thread - I have two different stiff, fast, responsive steel frames and none of my four steel frames are "plush, slow and heavy". Not being familiar with the SuperSix or the Gunnar I can't specifically give advice, but I'm debating: Part of me knows you can get what you want in steel, but maybe not for $1000. Another part of me thinks you'd like the Gunnar roadie and it would serve your purpose. From reading all the above posts, my impression/recommendation would be to get the SuperSix now, and then down the road when financing permits, get a Waterford or other high end steel frame.

redvespablur

If you want steel and you want to ride it first then you probably have the best luck going used. You will get a better bang for your buck as well

kaliayev

Unless you have unusual body proportions is a custom made frame necessary?

Grasschopper

Ok this is info not in your first post and it changes my answer. IMO you need to think about what you really want. To me your CAAD9 in your stiff, fast responsive bike and if you want to do riding that requires those traits you should ride that bike as it is a really good one. If you want a long day bike in my mind you give up some of the stiff and fast characteristics and should be looking at bikes like the Synapse, Specialized Roubaix SL3, Bianchi Infinito, Giant Defy Advanced...or some of the steel bikes mentioned. The carbon bikes will still be lighter and stiffer but fast will depend on how you define it...if your talking average speed over a 5 or 6 hour ride the steel bike will probably be very similar.

kergin

Physical limitations that come with old age? I guess some people prefer to be more upright / want taller head tubes.

bikerjp

That is kind of my thinking too but reversed. I was hoping to get the "high-end" steel now only I thought something like a gunnar would be high-end or at least higher-end. The more I look at steel bikes the more I see what high-end really is. A Serotta frames goes for $2600 - as do many others. Seems I probably can't find a good steel fram for less than $2000 unless it's used. I keep checking, but I'm not seeing much in the way of high-end steel on CL or ebay (and I won't buy anything that expensive unseen or untested anyway). The supersix is probably the best I can do right now.

Maybe when/if I have the money I'll get something like this...

dr_max

Having dilemma where there isn't

You're asking to choose between
https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/image/s...v=mpbl-1&px=-1


and

https://www-bgr-com.vimg.net/wp-conte...n-iphone-4.jpg

kaliayev

Pretty narrow minded way to look at it.

WhyFi

For no good reason, I've been poking around, looking at steel frames, too. One maker that looks interesting is DeSalvo - some nice looking frames, reasonable prices and the feedback that I've seen has been positive (in addition to a couple awards won at NAHBS). Anybody here has some additional input?

SlimRider

This analogy would be more appropriate if the iphone's screen was cracked and the graphics could not be easily discerned...

At that point, the old man with the old phone could still communicate and conduct business.

OTOH, the iphones future would be uncertain.

- Slim

PS.

Alternatively, if the iphone didn't function and nobody in the neighborhood could fix it, you could just send it to an electrical engineer or a computer specialist. One of them could "test" it, in order to "detect" the source of the problem. Of course, it might cost a couple hundred dollars or more to fix, but WTH, it's only money. We all know how iphone people don't care that much about money, 'cause image is so much more important!

bikerjp

Actually, that's a good way of putting it. I'd never buy an iPhone - overpriced, locked down, piece of crap - and probably explains my lack of enthusiasm over the supersix. I know it's a great bike, but just not what I really want.

BillyD

Now that's just crazy talk. Just stick with your bike dilemma and you'll be alright.

jr59

Besides he makes VERY nice stuff for cheap! That and he is a great guy to deal with!

Commodus

I don't get this thread. The guy wants a nice steel bike, and suddenly unless it's a $4000 Pegoretti or something it's worthless?

The Gunnars are super bikes. They ride nice, use great tubesets and they have good paint. And they're a screaming deal.

That said, however, OP has a CAAD9. It's a nice bike, and the bikes you're looking at are not a significant upgrade from a sporting point of view. If you just want another bike, pick up a Gunnar that can take fenders and now you have two nice bikes with different missions, and that's very useful.

garciawork

My fully custom Mikkelsen was $1400 for frame, fork, and paint. Curtlo I thought was actually a little less. There are PLENTY of smaller steel frame builders out there who will build you a frame/fork combo under $2000. If you poke around, there may even be some in your area with little to no online presence, but still have the knowledge you want.

IMO, Serotta, Seven, Waterford are all charging extra for name and paint and finish. I have no doubt that my Mikkelsen would ride the same as a frame by those guys, but it is also just powdercoated, and has little name recognition. That doesn't mean I don't drool over Seven's, or Waterford's...

surgeonstone

Pics please.

WhyFi

Do you have one or personally know someone that does? (I'm not busting chops, I'm interested.) Strong Frames looks pretty interesting, too.

coasting 

choose carbon.

I have steel and carbon.

garciawork

As requested: photo(1) (1024x765).jpg

Note, as of today, the front wheels matches the rear (damn Campy two way fit doesn't seal as easy as Stans... lesson learned), and the wheel decals are gone. Took her out for her first real ride today, the carbon bike is going to eBay...

Bob Dopolina 

Me thinks 'the industry" doesn't agree with you. The paper you keep quoting is dated. We are generations beyond it now.

Incorrect.

There is no advantage to saving weight on a DH bike so the added cost of producing a carbon frame makes no sense.

If that future were 1999.

It's been a while since I worked in steels but aren't all steels carbon based? Isn't a matter of how much carbon is in the steel? For instance the designation "4130" steel means that the carbon content is represented by the last 2 numbers in tenths of a percent: 0.30%.

I would suggest you read a little more about frame materials. Start here. Alloys have come a long way in the last few years. As you mentioned the treatment process of the materials is as important as the composition of the tubing.

I'm sure there are those on BF more expert in materials than me. If we're really going to discuss what kind of steel frame the OP might consider it would be great to hear from some of them.

mazdaspeed

^ a lot of the difference in steel frames these days versus vintage ones is that newer steels have more advanced alloys and are not weakened as much during construction. Brazing a frame for example anneals the metal* and weakens it, using too light of tubes would make the frame prone to failure. Newer tubesets are stronger (better strength to weight ratio) and therefore thinner and lighter, and can be reliably put together. Supposedly they are way stiffer than vintage frames but I haven't ridden a modern high end frame.

If you heat steel and let it cool over a long period of time it makes it softer and more pliable. If you cool it quickly, for instance dump a red hot piece into water, it hardens it significantly but it can become too brittle.

Bob Dopolina 

^^^Yeah, this much I am current on as it applies to other alloy parts as well.

What I'm a little fuzzy on are the different materials in the newer steels. I used to know percentages of some of my favourites but, as it goes now, I'm having a hard enough time recalling what the different treatments (like T6) mean nevermind what percent of what material particular tubesets use.

Easy enough to look up, though.

SlimRider

Bob Dopolina says:

I'm not going to spend much time on a subject that I've already discussed at length throughout BF. However, let me just say that I'm in a very good position to know about these materials. I will offer you a Santa Cruz video as evidence to confirm or corroborate my claims. Other than that, all I can say is read what Calfee Design has to say about impact-resistance and carbon fiber.

Check out the video:

www.vitalmtb.com/videos/feature/Test-Riding-the-Santa-Cruz-V10-Carbon,3035/sspomer,2
Listen to what Santa Cruz has to say about their own V-10 DH racing model with respect to impact and durability.


Check out the video. Cost is an issue. However, they seem to want to make the financial sacrifice for the sake of advancing the Santa Cruz V10 technology anyway, despite the cost.

Poppycock!

Yes! All steel contains carbon. Chromoly steel is stronger because it is made a stronger alloy of iron by the addition of the elements molybdenum and chromium. Since chromoly steel is a stronger type of steel, it can be constructed in a manner that allows for tube-butting and a thinning of the tubular walls. Its the construction technique that allows for the reduction of tubular mass, not the grade of steel, itself. All grades of steel have equivalent masses.

I know a fair amount about metals and their alloys. I don't feel compelled to research anything about which I am already familar.

Unless the OP is going to purchase titanium, I would suggest steel as being the most reliable bicycle frame material.

- Slim

datlas 

Probably not. I wish I had normal proportions so I could try a carbon frame.

OP: steel, aluminum, carbon and Ti are all viable frame materials.

And unless you really need custom geometry you can likely get a STOCK frame in the 1K range for any of these that will work well for you.

If you want custom, then there may be cost issues.

Bob Dopolina 

Considering I've worked in the bike industry for 25+ years and I make a living helping my customers design, develop and bring carbon products to market I don't think I need to watch a marketing video aimed at end users to learn about carbon.

You've made the same statement and referred to the same paper countless times now but have failed to offer anything more than this to back up your assertions. Frankly, I don't think you have a good grasp of what you read.

From the Techinal paper you constantly refer to (the emphasis is mine):

"Like damping, impact resistance is not found in every composite, but it can be designed in.

Pre-fabricated tubes formed around a mandrel are generally the most damage-tolerant. Bladder molded frames, because of lower compression pressures and inconsistent wall thicknesses are generally more susceptible to impact damage. With any tubing, appropriate minimum wall thickness must be balanced with appropriate tube diameter (diameter/wall thickness ratio) to ensure a bike that combines optimal ride characteristics and damage resistance. "

And:

"Conclusion

Carbon fiber exhibits the most desirable performance characteristics of any of the frame-building materials explored to date. It can be designed to be laterally stiff under heavy pedaling forces and still be light. It can absorb road shocks well, and still handle crisply while delivering undiminished applied pedal power to the drive train. It can be durable and not subject to fatigue failures while remaining strong enough to stand up to unexpected impacts and torsion forces. It can lend itself to attractive finishing and resist corrosion or attack by the elements. And it can be formed in an attractive, functional way allowing it to move through air resistance easily."

Can we move on now?