mtnbke

Again what are we talking about. When I qualify that Cannondale and Klein bicycles are freakin' rocket bikes, and I thought we were talking about racing bikes, and I make the point out that high zoot aluminum changed the paradigm, as they were stronger, accelerated like zoom, climbed like nothing we had seen before, and could easily outsprint steel bikes the response to defend vintage steel "racing" bikes is that they are more comfortable? Are we talking country cruisers or racing bikes. Absolutely, I have no doubt that high end steel bikes are more comfortable. However, I thought we were talking about vintage and classic racing bikes. Too which my point is that the entire conversation is disingenuous. With the introduction of aluminum, you can't actually have a Klein and Cannondale in the same conversation with even high zoot steel. The term racing bike has no meaning for the steel bikes once we start talking about the performance of the oversized aluminum bikes.

I'll complete concede that vintage steel bikes are probably comfy compared to a legit next generation aluminum racing bike. However, in a conversation where the aluminum bike is stiffer, stronger, faster in a sprint, and can out climb the steel bike, I'm not sure where to put the "more comfortable" placeholder. If we are going to talk about comfortable randonneur bicycles or touring bicycles I'll bring in titanium, carbon and magnesium. All will outperform steel, and all are reasonably able to make the argument of being more comfortable. Heck, a recumbent is probably more comfortable.

Apples and Oranges, which is what aluminum and steel really are. I personally have only oversized aluminum touring bikes. My big Cannondale STs and the Cannondale tandems those were based off of. I can build the bikes up with narrow 23 tires and crazy pressures 145+ and they become insanely fast accelerating bikes. I can put a 48/35 on the tandem and with the bigger tires the bike feels like a big truck. No precision to the handling and everything is just slow turning. I'm not changing the bikes, I'm changing the tires/pressures.

Heck just running tires with flat guard technology vastly increases the rolling resistance of a tire. Does that mean every bike is "harsher" with Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires instead of the regular Schwalbe Marathon? The wheel set and the tires and pressures have more to do with how a bike rides than the frame. I can make the most comfortable titanium bicycle feel "harsh" or a Cannondale feel "sluggish" with varying tire widths, profiles, TPI, and differing pressures.

All I'm sayin' is that while there are tens of thousands of people in the "steel is real" cult, as another poster put it: Cannondale's live in realITY. There are gorgeous steel bicycles out there. Many with great history and interesting components. There are great arguments to ride and collect C&V steel bikes. Pantographed components. Right there that's all you need. Some obnoxious Klein tool who is taking his Quantum off his Porsche and telling his buddy with the vintage Olmo or Colnago about how much more advanced the Klein is, and how it does this better and that better…guess what, all the Olmo/Colnago guy has to say is, "Maybe, but I like the pantagraphed components." Boom! What is the Klein guy going to say to that?

Steel bicycles had their place in cycling and still do. I take umbrage when certain manufacturers pitch steel as "better" when in reality steel fabrication is all their production model can afford. There is a thread in C&V right now of a certain returning member who learned to braze on his own bosses, having no experience doing this whatsoever. I've met lots of people that have built their own steel frames. That right there makes steel bikes more inclusive and more wholistic than aluminum frames. Unless you are Fell at MIT, most of us are not going to conquer the learning curve to produce an aluminum frame. Every single one of us can build a steel frame that given the identical lugs and tubing, jigs and miters is essentially indistinguishable from what a master frame builder could produce, by all but the most sophisticated of cyclists. That is why the whole "craftsmanship" rhetoric feels so wholly disingenuous. The real skill was with the titanium fabricators, aluminum fabricators, and those learning to hand lay up carbon/epoxy (and willing to endure the toxic noxious fumes). I guess I just want to push back against cultish behavior and dogmatic beliefs that aren't substantiated and repeated ad nauseum by the lemmings. I'd love to be able to fit most steel bikes in my size. I'd have a fleet of them. Colnagos, Olmos, a Windsor converted to Cinelli just to be a jackass and see all the people who appreciate my Cinelli for the fine bike it is. What I wouldn't do is pretend its the end all be all of bicycle technology, innovation or development.

Listen, an F1 race car is faster than just about anything out there. That doesn't mean any of us want to actually drive one on a track. First of all none of us have the neck strength to endure those lateral g-forces nor could we manage to keep the car going fast enough to keep the brakes warm enough to remain functional. I'd rather have some silly exotic sports car than an actual F1 race car. Of all the things I'll like about the sports car, I won't try to stay its a "better" racer than the F1. Its a more accessible race car, certainly.

Some riders truly find aluminum harsh. Very very lightweight cyclists clearly have communicated this. However, my point is different. My point is that a great many other cyclists who claim that something about aluminum isn't appealing to them, well I'm saying some of those are just full of it, or riding on overinflated too narrow tires. Mostly just full of it. That's okay. I think as a rule you had to be a total tool to actually buy a Klein new. That doesn't change that they are great epic bikes. I just wouldn't want to hear some anasthesiologist drone on about "better." The response to him, and me is not to try to make a disingenuous response about performance. You can simply say, the Klein is a great bike, but the Peg, Masi, 'nano, or even Paramount has something just…more.

That absolutely is true. I'll never deny that. There can be something almost magical about riding a steel bike. That isn't the conversation at hand though. The conversation at hand was just trying to get past the misinformation about steel bikes being equally adept to the likes of high zoot Kleins or C'dales, and that just isn't true. All other things being equal, there is a reason you never saw another steel bike win a gran tour after '94.

I think Miguel Indurain winning in '94 on a steel bike and then in '95 on an aluminum bike would be an interesting person to discuss this with. He's the last person to win a Tour on steel. He's also the first to win on aluminum (a very short list of cyclists did that), before carbon displaced the aluminum hegemony. Since the carbon era began, if steel was such a magical frame building material you'd think some European peleton cyclist would revert back to steel, right? Never going to happen, ever.

I don't remember anyone castigating rumors on the internet that Indurain hated his Pinarrello aluminum matrix bike because of it being "harsh." He was a bike racer, and it was…fast. Which is what a racer wants. If we're talking comfort bikes, let me know. In that case the misunderstanding is mine, and I apologize.

It wouldn't surprise me for a second if Indurain communicated that the steel Pinarrelos were more comfortable, however I don't think Pinarello forced him onto aluminum. I think he was a bike racer and wanted to go very very fast. No bike is everything, save possibly Magnesium bikes. Even then the only known Magnesium builder in the US, Paketa, has almost no cache with the cycling community outside of tandems. There is more at play in the covetousness of vintage steel bikes than just how they ride, or how the aluminum bikes ride. At some point its an entire cultural divide. Magically, Indurain spans that. Can we agree on that?

'