Originally Posted by
cyccommute
I'm not trying to start a flame war. I just know from lots of past experience...about 15 years worth now...that the mere mention of aluminum for touring will get someone's knickers in a knot.
15 years of forum experience? I had assumed you'd have more in cycling experience.
That said, let's address your "only acceptable objective facts" statement. Yes, steel is stiffer than aluminum and aluminum is lighter. But those aren't the only "facts" about the material. You stated right there another "acceptable, objective fact". It's the way the material is used. Steel can be used to make a stiff frame but it isn't because that's not what people are looking for in a touring frame. They want that soft, noodly ride because it feels good in a parking lot. They get used to it when they put a load on the bike but the bike suffers from the same problems as scale is finding. In other words, the bike is not stiff enough to ride out of the saddle without the frame flexing.
You got the fact that steel can be used in a certain way correct. After that it's just objective views based on pretty much nothing. Frame manufacturers do not make bikes feel a certain way because they to feel good in a parking lot. They put in a certain set of parameters that need to be met and use the tools and materials in their disposal to achieve those parameters. I'm going out on a limb here, but I am almost 100% certain that a parking lot blind test is not a deciding criteria for any bike company on how they design their frames.
I don't know what kinds of people you know, but the people I know and a lot of people I've discussed this online with aren't looking for a flexy noodly frame when they are buying a touring bike. Instead they look for something sturdy and stiff. Most touring frame manufacturers offer these and depending on the manufacturer choice the bikes can be steel or aluminum. For whatever reason steel seems to be the material of choice more often than not.
I've only owned one proper touring bike, the LHT and while I do like how it rides even when it's unloaded (I kinda have to, it's my main driver atm) I still dream of a bike that's more supple and better for light riding. It's easier on my hands and butt than the specialized crux I used to have (which was an insanely stiff frame if I may add) but that is as much a tire issue as it is a frame issue. The LHT isn't exactly a fine tuned fine riding road bike when on the other side you have carbon fiber etc.
I have however noticed that noodly frames wobble. The trek I had wobbled something crazy. The LHT is rock solid no matter how heavy the load gets. It's just a great touring bike.
I agree that modern frames are using all kinds of technologies and techniques to make the ride more tuned. The problem is that all of those technologies and techniques are being applied to aluminum but not steel. A steel touring bike made today hasn't changed from a steel touring bike made 40 years ago. They are still being made with the same round tube sets of the same diameters and same butting as those made in 1983.
You are simplifying matters too much. Just because both are made of tubes with same techniques does not mean they are the same. Yes, today butted tubes are still used, but they are almost solely oversized or ultra oversized in terms of touring bikes. Today we also have wider rear wheel spacing, compact frame geometries, more shaped seat and chain stays, machined rear cluster areas, strengthened disc brake areas, new head tube size standards, some of which are positively massive, thicker and wider fork blades etc. All of these add into the stiffness of the frame. Components today are also stiffer since we have aheadsets, outboard BB's, better bars etc.
And that ride from 1983 is what everyone seems to want in touring bikes. They want a frame that provides a nice "springy" ride. "Springy" and "comfortable" are the opposite of stiff and, as you pointed out above, are the result of design and use of the materials. Because of the use of small diameter tubing, the bikes aren't stiff enough to stand up to out of the saddle pedaling.
If only you had a way of proving any of this. As soon as you provide the evidence that "everyone wants" a springy ride for a touring bike, I'll be all ears. But as long as you do, all of that simply isn't true. Also OS tubing is the norm these days.
I beg to differ. I agree that a bike should flex and wobble but they do. I've tested an LHT. I found the ride without a load to be exactly the same as the ride given to me by my 1984 Miyata 610. That's the reason I went with the Cannondale when I decided to buy a new touring bike. The Cannodale was stiffer in the parking lot and, as a result, stiffer when loaded because the bike has frame that is designed to be stiffer.
No if you look at the miyata, it's lugged right? Standard diameter tubing instead of OS. Also super thin fork blades as well as really thin chainstays / seatstays. Also a super thin head tube since it's the old type of threaded headset. And to add to that you are not a stiffness testing machine so your view was very likely biased and thus affected your judgement. And humans as testing instruments usually tend to not be very accurate in any case. And did you use the same tires, same tubes and same pressures with all the aforementioned bikes? I'm being pedantic, because for a person touting science in every thread, you sure disregard it a lot when you make these assesments or opinions.
Another matter that may affect this is that a few years back Surly did in fact change the design of their LHT to make it stiffer. Before that there actually were complaints that it was too noodly, but those complaints have since ceased. Personally I think it was due to the EU bicycle regulation coming to force since it was around the same time. If you were riding the old LHT it's possible you may have gotten a slightly springier feel than what you'd get from a modern one. However even the old one was a lot more beefy than the Miyata.
First, old mountain bikes used larger diameter tubing from the beginning than road tubing. The bikes were designed to do something entirely different from what road bikes of the era were supposed to do so they made them beefier and stiffer than comparable road bikes of the era. However, they didn't make them all that stiff. Load them up with stuff and they will suffer the same problem as old (and new) steel touring frames which were beefier than road bikes as well.
The old mountain bikes I've seen still had pretty thin chainstays and seat stays even if the main tubes were OS.
EDIT: OH, almost forgot! Modern stems, bars and wider steerer tubes make touring bikes easier to handle when pedaling from the saddle since the bar / stem combo isn't flexing every which way all the time. I have a Nitto stem and dang that thing is like trying to hold on to a snake when my drunk bike is loaded.