All-in-all I thought it a good unbiased video; however, he did leave out that high-end steel bikes have double-butted tubes throughout and that cuts weight without sacrificing strength or rideability. I could also detect that he "may" and I do say 'may' not have a lot of experience riding steel bikes. If he had he might have dived more into the ride that a steel bike provides. He hit that aspect pretty well but in generalizations and not really specifics.

Good video. I like both of their channels on YouTube.

The aluminium thing was different. He also sounded like people buy steel custom bikes because it's cheap. Came across odd to me.

Probably because that's true for all materials. If anything, steel is at a disadvantage here; steel builders generally have to use cylindrical tubes with simple butting profiles, while butted aluminum tubes can be hydroformed into various shapes and CF can have extra layering placed totally arbitrarily.

Also, butting isn't really restricted to the high-end. Even entry-level steel bikes often feature some butting, although it typically gets fancier as you go up the tiers.

There's not much that you can really go into as far as specifics are concerned. He discussed why steel tubing tends to be flexier, and beyond that there's not much to say. Different steel bikes ride differently.

These are opinions.

Steel can be hydroformed too. I'd actually be somewhat surprised if no one is doing this, but if they are, I'm not aware of it. Any heat treatment would need to be done afterwards, but this is needed for aluminum as well.

It technically can be, but it's extremely uncommon in bicycles. The only example I'm aware of was the Breezer Venturi, introduced in 2012 and has since been discontinued.

LOL, well I put almost 8000 miles on my steel rides this year alone. Still not sure I could objectively and factually speak to the "ride" they deliver. I just like it, what ever it is. :thumb:

No bicycle frame (or any critical structure) should be experiencing regular or cyclical stresses that take it anywhere near its fatigue limit. Not even anywhere near its UTS, or its yield point for that matter, which come far before breaking even comes into the picture. When an engineer designs a product that is load-bearing or structural they design it to be within the confines of a "safety factor" - basically they design the product to have a yield strength much, much higher than the stresses it could encounter in use. This includes bicycles. Fatigue limit is basically irrelevant when it comes to comparing properly-designed bicycles of different materials.

True, but what happens when you crash your aluminum bike and it gets bent a bit? That's beyond the design parameters, wouldn't you say? If I had the same crash, same bend on my steel frame, I'd rather bend mine back and limp home. Not sure about your aluminum bike.

It happens. I've bent back a lot of steel frames and forks from minor front end collisions. Of course, I wouldn't dare do that on an aluminum frame. Most anybody that's ever worked in a bike shop can tell tales of people bringing in bent steel framed bikes for a non-related repair, and finding out that the person had been riding it that way for awhile. Not sure how many bent aluminum frames are in the same boat.

Yes, no bicycle frame should ever experience conditions that take it anywhere near fatigue limit. What's relevent is that there are people who do this, and most of them aren't engineers or bike mechanics or have any kind of background that would stop them from riding a bike that you and I would call unsafe.

I'm not trying to scare anybody from riding aluminum or carbon fiber. There are millions of bikes out there that aren't steel and have plenty of miles on them. I've owned bikes with frames made of all three materials.

My original comment on this thread is that the world "toughness" popped up on the screen as a parameter to compare steel vs carbon fiber vs aluminum, but was not pursued. I believe it is relevant for the reasons I've stated, and should be a consideration when purchasing a bike.

Yup. The 1992 Univega Via Carisma I bought last summer was very uncomfortable to me with the original flat bar. I swapped bars with my Globe Carmel, which had a slight riser bar that was still too high even with the stem bottomed out. Now both are nearly perfect. The Carmel comfort hybrid feels more efficient with the flat bar, and still comfortable. The Univega is much more comfortable for me now on gravel and rough roads.

But after trying a friend's bike with albatross bars over the weekend I'm giving serious thought to trying a more swept back bar on the Univega. The albatross bar was very comfortable, with less stress on my back and neck. My main concern was the toe overlap and knee clearance. Might be different with my own frame (my friend's bike was a bit too short for me). I'm assuming even with a proper fit I'd still be sacrificing something in tight turns at low speed.

Or maybe I'll browse craigslist for another bargain in a steel frame mountain bike or older hybrid and try an albatross bar on it. I was surprised by how light the Via Carisma frame felt, even without stripping all the components. Maybe that's the trick of the Biaxial Power Oval whatchamacallit Univega used for a couple of years -- lighter top tube but still rigid and strong.

Fair enough!