Originally Posted by
McBTC
Interesting you say that-- I'm not dissing steel to think alloy bikes may have over time achieved the sort of 'comfort' we associate with our vintage steelies. I doubt we've eclipsed the cromo 'standard' with our latest alloy designs, although that probably easily can be said of CF frames. A lot of what I feel is based quite literally on... hindsight, and, my bike seems comfortable. Nevertheless, there is a sort of bump in the road -- can't say more about it as I only know it when I hit it -- but, it's a jolt in the bars that's so intense and abrupt it's almost like my wrists had ears that were suddenly deafened by the clang huge bell, so loud as to cause instant pain... like running into a wall. I put a 28 on the front and have some gel on the bars with a couple of wraps because of it. My alloy rig has CF forks with an aluminum steerer tube but it also has a pretty tall 220mm tapered head tube which imagine probably would be just as stiff if it was made of steel. I had grab-ons on the bars of the old Trek that I had for touring years ago so, it's not like it had zero issues with steel. I think part of the difference in ride might be that my old steel road bikes had much longer wheel bases but, I don't see that as a matter of material choice.
I think part of the problem is when it comes to comparing the 'venerable ride of steel' with other materials...again, I have owned 30 steel bikes, some believe this ride quality is the holy grail. They place this metric above all else. They love the springiness of steel. How the bike feels when riding. And then you have the performance guys. I am reminded of the people who in years past loved the ride of a Lincoln or Cadillac. They loved the compliance and 'springiness' aka under damped quality of the ride that was engineered for this target demographic. Meanwhile, Porsche ownership on the opposite end of the spectrum was alive and well.
I believe that is what we have here. In years past really predating carbon fiber where tube shapes were learned so much about, back in the day of the famous or infamous Vitus Al frame with its whippy quality, Al could be construed as a flimsy material. After all, of the four bicycle materials, Al has the lowest modulus of elasticity. Its the most flexible material of all of them. So an Al bike can be made flexible and light when tube shape and size was closer to that of steel. Carbon fiber came along and engineers started with straight section carbon tubes and even lugged straight tubes on the Look 555 I owned in the early 2000's, but then computer analysis...Look was on the vanguard of the this with asymmetric tube shape and even asymmetric carbon weave with anisotropic bending stiffness, so much was learned about section modulus and tube shape. This is what catapulted Al to a higher level. An Aluminum bike can be engineered like my new Specialized Allez with a 'springy' quality...feeling alive as the video states which is true, BUT, with greater lateral stiffness, much stiffer front end and lower weight than steel. So why can't this same technology be applied to Steel? Steel can't be formed as readily because of its higher modulus and yield strength compared to Al. In summary, you are stuck with more uniform tubing sections that you can create with Al and one can never make a steel bike as stiff in the desirable places as Al without making the weight disparity between steel and Al even greater.
Now, do you need a heavy science background to understand the above? Not sure. Moment of inertia and differential bending in perpendicular planes is based upon section modulus which needs to be asymmetric. Steel is more uniform, and Al is not. Ti is in the same trap. Not so with Al and Carbon fiber, what sets them free.
Here's the thing. A big company like Specialized or Trek or Cannondale understand the above implicitly. These are engineering based companies. These companies aren't comprised of artisan's, but guys who understand physics. This isn't romantic, it is fact based. These companies don't want to make heavier bikes for guys who love a springy ride quality. These companies make performance bicycles, the lightest bikes with the stiffness in the places that make them the fastest with 'an eye toward ride quality' but it isn't the 'be all' as with steel loyalist's who are less performance oriented. They don't want to make a 1960 Cadillac or Lincoln. They prefer to make a modern Porsche for guys who care about riding fast, including an old guy like me. Honestly, my Roubaix takes the bumps better than any steel bike I have ever owned. It is lighter, more laterally stiff and faster. Same with my Allez although carbon wins in terms of overall performance including ride quality.
When it comes to ride quality btw, some like it rough. Believe it or not. I tend to like my tires pumped up pretty hard. I want to feel the road. I prefer a Porsche to a Cadillac.
So people are different and have 'different priorities' in terms of what matters.
Moreover, the 'the industry has spoken' Almost no steel bikes. Steel dissolved in Europe even before steel started to disappear in the US. The industry has spoken 'for a reason'. It is based upon what people want including me. Do I have a beef against steel bikes? No, ride what you like. But for my money, I want a very light, laterally stiff and reasonably but perhaps not nth degree compliant 'springy' ride quality, I prefer a planted controlled ride for best possible control of the bike when hammering and that is precisely what big brand bike companies engineer and sell for guys like me and of course even better riders.