Originally Posted by
cyclintom
I tried to keep up with all of the latest fads. I ended up with top end carbon bikes and to tell you the truth most of them rode like garbage. I am not a pro-racer and I'm not going fast enough to smooth the bumps out with speed. Then they started making carbon bikes for people who just tide. These carbon bikes are pretty light but to tell you the truth my bike and body weigh a little over 210 lbs. and changing this weight by a couple of percent as a normal sports rider doesn't make a detectable difference in climbing or riding on the flats.
So it began narrowing down to whether it was worthwhile to pay a small fortune to have a new or even newish bike.
I began riding more and more aluminum bikes and while they rode OK, I didn't like the cables ringing like a bell when they slapped against the headtube on the terrible roads around here. So now I will be turning back to steel bikes. Tomasso, Tomassini, Masi and other really nice bikes using modern groups and such can end up almost as light as a top end carbon racing bike,. Certainly as good as my Colnago C50 which I keep around for old times sake.
At 77 I neither climb fast enough nor have the guts to descend fast enough to make aerodynamic drag even worth mention. So shouldn't ai ride a nice comfortable bike that doesn't put my bank account in the red?
Originally Posted by
cxwrench
To be perfectly honest with you neither frame material nor 'design' have really anything to do with ride quality. Unless you have some kind of mechanical pivot in the frame (Trek Domane) all frames are so close in ride quality you'd never be able to tell the difference in a blind test. Tire pressure is another story.
The steel frame is fine indeed, and there are a great many classic and vintage bicycles that are undeniably worthy. If you don't ride fast and are the least bit concerned about comfort, I second the advice to consider tire pressure carefully. If you ride classic steel bikes with tubulars, and most of the top-end road models had them, you will not find it there. I'm riding a classic with 27" clinchers. Those typically take a 32mm tire that I can run at 55 to 60 psi. That's marginal for comfort depending on road conditions. On smooth pavement, I can't imagine anything more comfortable. On the worst pavement with cracks and potholes, and on soft gravel with washboard, it's only tolerable. My wife's bike has 650B's at 50mm that can be run at 26 psi. Those float over anything that can even remotely be called a road. They might add rolling resistance that takes as much as 4 watts more power at 10mph, but I don't notice a difference until I get up closer to 20mph where I am just not apt to ride for very long.
I don't think 50mm tires are necessary for comfort, but there is little to be said against them for your purposes. Do consider that a steel frame that only accommodates skinny tubulars, or 23mm or 25mm tires on clinchers, is unlikely to fulfill your stated desires. 32's allow lower pressure, but aren't quite in the realm of "plush." Consider a frame that will accept 700C's or 650B's that are even fatter so you can run less than 50 psi. That will make a much bigger difference than the frame material. Even so, my preference is still for steel because none of the other materials offer anything superior for the purpose we're discussing than a well-crafted frame of butted chromoly tubing brazed into carefully fitted lugs.