DX Rider

I have three bikes, an aluminum framed mountain bike, an aluminum framed hybrid, and a steel framed Motobecane street bike.


The only one of the three that anyone seems to pick up is the Moto and it seems like almost everyone does pick it up when they see it for the first time. No one really picks up the other two, even though the mountain bike is probably close in the weight department, it's pretty light.

I think that people who are into bikes only casually tend to associate light weight with high quality, but I disagree that being concerned with weight is strictly an issue for the inexperienced.

Scooper

I hope you'd agree that Lance is a "real professional"; last year he paid $12,000 at NAHBS for a steel bike by Naked Cycles, so although he may ride carbon in competition because that's what his sponsors want him to ride, he obviously appreciates steel on a personal level.

RobbieTunes

+1

... sort of.

The modern CF bike gets picked up all the time, but again, it looks like a toy.

No one has ever asked me anything about the Ti bike. I think they pity me for such a sorry paint job.

The C&V carbon bikes get a lot of "lean-ins," but something in my manner must dissuade actual touching...

The steel bikes are always drawing those who want to ride them.
If I show up on some group rides on an Ironman, I'll spend 1/3 of the trip on someone else's CF bike.
Go figure. It's not rare, or valuable, just steel.

Sometimes I feel like Huck Finn painting a fence...

divineAndbright

A worthwhile listen with some interesting perspective. I think bike weight is important although overly obsessed over. You'll (or should) notice a 5 pound difference, although the weight in frame material isn't so significant anymore, its down within ounces as said.

Its kind of strange I can lose 10 pounds and not notice that while riding, but if you were to cut 10 pounds off the bike you notice it flat off the bat.

The reynolds 953 tubeset sounds exciting, it would be something to have a custom light weight steel frame custom built for me some day, but wow its freaken expensive, so I'll stick to vintage used!

-holiday76

Does Waterford sell primarily to "professionals?"

And, professionals?

So Lance is a Professional?

What about that German guy who's been touring on an English 3 speed of some sort basically non stop since the 60's? Is he a professional?

What about bike messengers, are they professionals?

Was Sheldon a professional?

Everyone always equates racing to the highest god given purpose of bicycles when it is just one of many. Bicycles are tools, and although weight is often one of the attributes of that tool we like to tweak there are many other uses for this tool where weight isnt the main consideration.

Road Fan

Please click the link and spend the half hour to listen to what Richard Schwinn said in entirety. He considers and addresses all the points you raise and places them in a sensible context.

dudeona3V

I think Levi also rides steel when not competing (Land Shark I believe). Speaking of Lance and weight, I remember there being an incident on a Tour several years ago (Georgia I think) where Trek was pushing him to ride their then-new Madone and Lance ditched it just before a stage in favor of his heavier more comfortable 5900 (?) OCLV. More than weight and how long they last, it's about how they feel to the individual rider. Case in point: I have both an CF Orbea Orca and have owned several vintage steel Zeus bikes. Different era, different material, different technology, dramatically different weight. Oddly however, they feel very similar.

unterhausen

light weight bikes are addictive, but their actual effect on ride time seems fairly debatable. If you cut 5 pounds off your bike, you probably can feel it on a steeper climb or a sprint. Otherwise, given the same tires/inflation, you probably can't tell the difference. Either way, I doubt there is a measurable performance increase. There is a theory in the weight weenie community of the "micro-acceleration" where you accelerate repeatedly under normal riding conditions. I think there is some truth to that, and it gives a mistaken impression of better performance for lighter bikes.

And I also think that the original post in the Road Forum was bound to generate some disagreement and controversy given that it denigrates some the top bicycles available nowadays, at least to some degree. Personally, I have thought that carbon was the ultimate bicycle frame material since the mid '70s. I took a class in composite material engineering back in 1981 because of that. However, I never really had any idea that steel was going to be relegated to collectors and the high end purchasers like it has been. I think that steel will survive into the future, but mainstream bikes will probably be aluminum and CF.

Exit.

I'm not so sure about that. At 20 years of age, I'm probably what you're referring to as "younger generations". I own three bikes, and all of them are steel.

luker

carbon is a superior material...for manufacturing. As a species, we have reached the point where more people have the disposable income, world-wide, and can afford nicer bikes. Manufacturing has always answered with mass production technologies, and the older one-off manufacturing technologies are 1) relegated to history, or 2) reserved for very high-end products. Hand-built watches are an extreme example; you can buy a timex that will keep flawless time for years, and you have to set your rolex every day.

But the rolex demands a premium that would buy cases of timex's.

RobbieTunes

+1

There are dozens of arguments about speed relative to weight, all other factors equal. The reality is, few of us have identical groups, wheels, tires, saddles, and bars on two identical frames of the same geometry and size, just different materials.

I think Mr. Schwinn knows of what he speaks, and maybe 10% of what he says is marketing, but he knows his market. His buyers aren't inclined to compromise what they want and like in a bike to save some weight, and don't.

It is surprising that current steel is pretty much top end stuff. I figured once Ti came out, it was over for steel, and I was wrong. Same thing with CF, I was wrong again. Same thing with the Specialized Expedition or Miyata 1000. There's newer, better, lighter, stronger. But there's nothing like them.

Steel is just different, and has qualities that strike a chord in some people. Good for it. I want more.

tatfiend 

IMO they are out of touch. If steel is obsolete then why is Surly such a success? Currently a lot of bike manufacturers including Bianchi, Salsa, Trek and others have steel frames in their bike lineups. I just built a new steel bike on a Steelwool Tweed frame.

Scooper

I just completed the AIDS/LifeCycle ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles on my Waterford (953 RS-22), and had many, many questions and comments from riders on CF bikes (there were 2,100 riders). The most often asked question was "how old is it?", followed by "how much does it weigh?" When I said the frame weighed 3.6 pounds, the most common reaction was one of amazement. Then they wanted to pick it up. Finally, they said "I thought steel was really heavy."

Bear in mind most of the riders were in their twenties and thirties. I think a lot of them had some misconceptions dispelled.

Sixty Fiver

I run into people with this misconception that a steel bike has to be a heavy bike and over the past several decades the push and marketing for aluminium as the primary frame material in most bikes was very strong and this has been followed and shadowed by carbon fibre as the material of choice for high end racing bicycles.

Ti is still a pretty limited as a common frame material due to it's high cost.

Weight is a factor at competitive and elite levels as when the engines are almost identical the only place to improve is in the bicycle itself but the benefits to the casual or weekend rider will be much less.

Carbon fibre lends itself to moulding which can allow for the most aerodynamic of frames and forks which is something you cannot do with steel tubes and if anything, the increased aerodynamics are what have created the greatest speed increases.

It's all about that little tiny edge and shaving off seconds.

I was laying down sub hour 40's on a a steel road bike 25 years ago, albeit a very light and fast one, and a few years ago came very close to doing that on my 1955 Raleigh Lenton fixed gear which weighs as much as 2 wonder bikes.

Many folks cannot believe that a 54 year old bike with only one speed can go as fast as it does and I have other bikes in the mid 20 pound range that are also very fast because they are well tuned, the geometry is right, and the engine works really well.

I ride with some serious racers who have some carbon wonder bikes and they even thought that I might be able to run with the cat 3's if I embraced some carbon fibre and Dura Ace and then joked that because I am old (master's) they would thankfully... not have to race me.

On faster group rides most people have been pretty taken aback by the old guy riding the old Raleigh that only has 12 speeds and a 12-21 block in the rear... by the end of the ride these folks generally have a lot of questions as to how such a "heavy and old" steel bike could have kept up and also have a little more respect.

The ss/fg guys crack me up the most when it comes to weight issues... my old Peugeot fixed gear weighs 21 pounds and they can't believe how I ride such a heavy bike as I do.

Steel is definitely real and a great choice for most riders out there.

Sixty Fiver

PS - My steel hardtail is by far, one of the nicest rigs I have ever owned.

StanSeven

I ride a Waterford, a Seven Ti, and a Cervelo CF. They all three have very similar geometries and the ride is close between them all. The CF feels a little quicker accelerating and climbing. It also handles a little better. Both the steel and Ti are slighly more comfortable.

jtgotsjets

As a beginner myself, I think that most misconceptions about steel framed bikes comes from one's first bike. A lot of people either A) get a wal-mart aluminum bike and assume it's aluminum due to some intrinsic property of aluminum that makes it better than steel or B) buy a used steel bike without knowing much about bikes. Maybe it looks nice but it is set up poorly (and is quite possibly actually heavier than is desireable) so when they try their friend's brand new aluminum walmart bike, they figure the weight is the problem (weight being the most tangible factor to a layperson with no knowledge of bikes and components).

Myself, I was riding about daily for around a year but gave up when I moved a little further out-everywhere I wanted to go required me to ride a ridiculous grade, which I never felt up to doing with my tank of a bike: an old 5 speed schwinn cruiser- tons of steel, lots of gears (for a cruiser), big old steel fenders, rear rack and a milk crate basket with six bungees. Looked slick, but it wasn't worth the risk of a coronary taking it up a hill.

lc911t

Golf.

Charles Wahl

It's always seemed a pointless vanity to me that weight of bikes is such an obsession, while the preponderance (pun intended) of people who are so obsessed are 20-30 pounds overweight! The only time I notice whether my bike is heavy or not is when I have to carry it. The 40-pound Schwinn Continental that was my introduction to geared cycling was exceedingly pleasant to ride; I wish that I still had it, but I gave it to a friend.

afilado

Yep, that's an all star candidate. LOL. I knew fellows who always had to have the latest Ping driver..........and they still never broke 90.

Longfemur

I couldn't agree more. It seems so silly to worry and argue about 3-4 lbs or even more when so many people who ride road bikes nowadays are quite heavyweights themselves, close to or above 200 lbs. In fact, I say it's thanks to these guys that the road bike industry has had to emphasize stiffness so much. These behemoths and pituitary cases would twist anything. Now smaller, lighter guys have to ride granite-like bikes because of it all, unless we can afford custom steel. With riders weighing so much, it's physically impossible that a few small pounds on the bike make any difference. The fact is, there is virtually no performance difference between a good quality steel racing bike and any other similarly-equipped bike in any frame material.

illwafer

thank you for the post. if nothing else, i learned tange is pronounced "tahn-gay".

KonaBuyer

This is simply nonsense. I see it said, over and over, that if someone wants a lighter bike, they should just lose weight. Total gibberish. If I lose 15 pounds, does my bike weigh 15 pounds less? If I lose 40, is my bike a negative weight? Ascribing a person's weight loss to the bike is just silly.

I have to carry my bike down three flights of stairs, so I appreciate a lighter bike. You don't, for whatever reason.

cs1

Just finished listening to the podcast. Very informative. Anyone who comments needs to listen to it in its entirety first.

Road Fan

Need to find out how a Japanese native speaker says it, that's more significant than how Georgina Terry pronounces it.