Do you agree with Richard Schwinn?
 

This is a post I placed on the Road forum and I got a set of responses that were "curious" to me. I am posting here to see how C&V (the other area I read/post) fans feel on the subject.

===============================================================================
Below is a quote from Richard Schwinn, owner of Waterford Precision Bicycles and grandson of THAT Schwinn. When I heard this at: http://www.terrybicycles.com/media/podcasts/Schwinn.mp3 (a bit past half way through), it hit me that this sums up one reason why I stepped off my aluminum road bikes and went back to steel. I truly like the feel of the steel bike under me. The light bikes make me feel like my ride is about to come apart under my saddle.

Do C&V riders agree or disagree?

"What less sophisticated riders are more concerned about is weight, and the first thing that they will do is figure out how much this thing weighs, and that is going to become a surrogate for all the other properties, all the other indicators of quality...what real professionals really want is something that is going to hold up, something that they can ride with confidence..."

It's an overly simplistic sound bite but his general point sounds about right to me. I can't think of another industry that is so emotionally ("bells and whistles") driven as contemporary bicycling. Audio gear runs a close second.

It would be interesting to know the context of Mr. Schwinn's comment.

I agree, to a point. Carbon, Aluminum, and Titanium and weight weenies all have their places in cycling. We who like to ride C&V bikes sometimes ride them too, and can be very weight conscious. Just because a bike is made of steel (whether lugged, fillet brazed, or welded) can still be surprisingly light weight. There are probably a lot of bikes floating right around here on our little forum that easily weight less than 20 lbs. But, that doesn't discount those plastic wonder bikes that weigh 14-15 pounds. There are plenty nowadays, that though they lack the same handcrafted mystique of our some of our older steel rides (not always though), they still have a plenty good ride. They wouldn't sell if people didn't enjoy riding them, plain and simple. Sure, there's only a limited lifespan of those bikes, but steel has the same. There are many horror stories of steel spontaneously exploding, maybe not as many as carbon, but they are out there.
To me, Richard Schwinn is just advertising. It's a tough economy and everybody is trying to push their products. Steel has a hard time gaining any of its former footing in light of the onslaught of carbon manufacturers, especially since steel bikes are sometimes more expensive than carbon bikes, and almost always less available.
There will always be die-hard advocates of each type of material. Pick your place, in this sport it's hard to tell most people something they just don't want to hear.
-Gene-

The context was a discussion about steel bike frames not being relegated to "strictly old school bikes." I never heard him disparage aluminum, Ti, or CF, just make a case that steel is still relevant.

I ride mostly steel for a variety of good and bad reasons.

But, one has to admit that the weight of a bike is a huge deal.

jim

"real professionals" are all riding full carbon, so his point is rather flawed.

:eek: we are supposed to RIDE them !

His point isn't at all flawed, because he didn't say anything about frame materials per se. I read an article about Tom Boonen's (carbon) Paris Roubaix bike not long ago, and Specialized said they wouldn't offer the same bike to actual customers because it was so overbuilt. It was both siffer than any amateur could comfortably stand over any distance, and heavier then was necessary for the uses to which most amateurs would put it. They didn't build Boonen the lightest possible bike. Pros can do things to bikes that even a gifted amateur simply can't do. They very often care about issues other than weight - otherwise, special bikes for climbing stages wouldn't exist, because no others would be needed.
I think Richard is quite correct that the fascination with weight of most amateur riders, who are probably carrying some extra weight themselves, is very misplaced. The weight of a bike is not "a huge deal" necessarily - it depends on the purpose of the bike and the qualities of the rider. It's largely marketing types who want you to believe that weight is a "huge deal." Whether or not most amateur riders enjoy riding a particular bike and ride more, vs. less, has very little to do with weight.
I just attended a presentation by Jan Heine, author of "The Competition Bicycle" and "The Golden Age of Handbuilt Bicycles" where he pointed out that one of Coppi's Tour-winning machines was some ridiculous amount heavier (I think about 7 pounds) than was necessary given the technology of the time - riders in earlier Tours had ridden lighter bikes. Obviously weight wasn't all Coppi cared about. The same is true today, though not to the same extent, since the weight penalty a rider can tolerate to achieve gains in other areas is less. Also, riders have less choice - they tend to have to ride the bikes sponsors want to sell, rather than sponsors wanting to sell what the pros actually ride.

I also attended a talk by framebuilder Peter Weigle where he told the story of waxing a couple of local guys on fancy bikes while riding an old bike with upright bars. The guys were apparently pretty distressed by getting dropped by an old guy on a steel bike. Weight matters more to fragile egos; the rider matters more than the weight of the bike.

I strongly recommend you all listen to the *entire* interview, it's very interesting. He makes some observations about the aluminum market in China I never heard anywhere else before.

I agree with the sentence. It's impossible to realisticly quantity what makes one bike better for a particular rider over another. Weight is a nice, simple easy-to-measure number. Frame & component cost is another. I have a strong feeling most of us (especially me) couldn't tell a 20 pound bike from a 19 pound one from the saddle. Or top of the line from mid range componentry for that matter.

I've been buying & selling a lot of bikes recently. It's my policy to test ride for a few miles, usually about 10. A nice Bridgestone MB-6 was a favorite. Fast, responsive, effortless to cruise on. Good climber. It wasn't the weight, but the street tires & geometry that made it feel better than other similar bikes in my rotating stable.

Just ride the damn bike you got.

If you are a racer, the weight of your bike is one of your psych weapons. You hang in the parking lot, picking one another's bikes up, and if you have a light one, the guy next to you will remember when you are both suffering on a climb. If you are close to matched, he may just crack thinking about your light bike.

I ain't psychin' anyone anymore, and I can ride anything that won't crumble under me. I like steel, I think, best. Titanium is a very close second. But it is a tempest in a tea pot because after the first hundred cranks or so I forget what the heck I'm riding anyway. I have a long term study going to see if I can measure any performance difference in various frame materials. So far there is absolutely no statistical difference, although the bikes have a fairly wide range of weights. I'll probably have it published posthumously, btw, so don't expect anything soon.

The bottom line, I think, is that aerodynamics have such a much larger effect and frame materials are, um, immaterial.

Ride what makes you feel best.

Clouds parting, going for a ride here...

Click on the link - it's a rather thorough 30 minute statement.

Exactly! This was a discussion, not an snippet of advertising.

Mr. Schwinn makes a good point. In general, his customers have "been there, done that" and now know exactly what they want, and many decide steel is how they can get exactly what they want.

I've got modern CF, and C&V CF. The quirks of the older CF are endearing, the modern CF is kind of a sterile item. I've got Ti, and the ride is outstanding but the bike isn't much to look at, or discuss. Steel lugged just has a substance, simplicity, and lack of sterility that I like, a quality of character I'd prefer given a choice of all.

i've got a lynskey Ti and i have to agree, it doesn't look like much. but the degree of skill used in making it is beautiful. that and all my friends are really surprised at how light it is (the bike is strange. red group with ksyrium wheelset lol. i don't race yet so no big deal...)

I have been lucky enough to get my hands on a lot of vintage road bicycles over the past ten years or so. At first, I bought the incredibly light BS thinking the my higher enders were less than 20 pounds. Not so!

Generally there are four categories of weights.

Department store entry lever = 30lbs+
Bike Shop entry level 25-35lbs
Bike Shop quality bikes 21-25lbs

I have not measured the weight of all of the bicycles found over the years. In fact, I started measuring weight about four months ago when I bought a digital scale. I was surprised at the results. Today, the lightest bike in my collection comes in around the 22lb mark and that includes the weight of the pedals mounted every time.

As for weight making a difference? You bet it does. Swap a set of clincher wheels for a set of sew-ups and compare. The two to three pounds saved will indeed be felt in the seat of your pants when out riding. Also, to get weight down, one must opt for good quality components which are not only generally lighter, but they work a great deal better in most cases. Again, this adds positively to the feel of the bicycle.

So does weight matter? To me it does but if I am looking to significantly lighten up a bike, I loose weight myself and guess what, the bike is better to ride.

On a final note, I recently acquired a full Columbus SLX Gardin Anniversary. An incredible bike for its age and very light. Sadly, I am too heavy to ride the bicycle. My weight and strength flex the frame set like crazy.

So if you goal is to have the lightest vintage road bicycle around, spend lots of money and don't ride it a lot if you weight more than 170lbs.

Just an old man's opinion, of course.

For me, this discussion is relevant mostly apropos my commuter bike(s). My main commuter is presently a Downtube Mini, which is an all aluminum folding bike, made in China, 16" wheels, Sturmey Archer 8-speed hub. It weighs 25 lbs. I ride it about 16 miles every day, in both sub-rural NJ and heavy Manhattan traffic, and cannot avoid every bump. In other words, I pound the **** out of it on a near daily basis. I'm on my second frame; the first one cracked after about 5000 miles.

I have a second folding bike that's a very cheap one, with a steel frame and a lot of other steel as well. It weighs 40 lbs, and I use it when the Downtube is disabled for whatever reason. It's main disadvantage is it has a Shimano Nexus 4 speed hub, which is a lot less fun to ride than the SA. But it is in many ways more comfortable, which I cannot really explain.

The weight of the bike makes very little difference when riding. But it makes a big difference when I fold the bike up and lift it up over my head and put it on the luggage rack of the NJTransit commuter train (every morning and every afternoon).

I admit I have more faith in the steel frame than in the aluminum, but it hardly matters; I have a lot of aluminum components on all of my bikes, many of which could cause catastrophic crash in the event of failure (handlebar, stem, etc). Evem so, I would definitely be interested in a chrome-moly or 531 framed folding bike... but sadly they do not exist.

"...what real professionals really want is something that is going to hold up, something that they can ride with confidence..." - RS

I have to take issue with the use of the word "professional." It was pointed out correctly above that professional racers and most upper level amatures ride carbon frames. So, what exactly did Mr. Schwinn mean by "professional"? He means of course the kind of people who know bikes, know construction and materials, and who are probably old enough to have ridden steel bikes when that about all there was. I'm one of those people, but I'm not able or willing to spend the money on a Waterford frame (or others in that price range). I ride a modern carbon bike "off the rack" because in a few years I'll have two kids to put through college. In regard to materials and aesthetics...de gustabus non desputandem (for those who avoided Latin: in matters of taste, there can be no argument). I can look at a the Nervux lugs of a Chicago Paramount and feel my heart race. I sometimes have visions of my long gone Serotta Nova Special...but I really like the look of modern road bikes, too: graceful, solid, muscular, "futuristic".

In terms of "ride", I'm not so particular. Steel is nice, true, but aluminum never "beats me up" the way I've heard it described by other riders (I ride at 42 between 100-150 miles a week). My carbon frame is very responsive and stable. I like it all. What I think a lot of people refuse to admit is that your wheels and tires play in some cases a larger role in all these "undocumentable" sensations we get from one bike and not another. Decaling aside, most bikes we buy within a certain price point are about the same. Put an excellent set of wheels/tires on your stock frame and I'd bet you feel the difference right away. That's a tangible difference in weight, rolling resistence, stiffness, etc.

There's a market for all of these bikes, steel Waterfords inlcuded, but I'm not sure we're going to see any rollback among "professonals" to steel barring some future disaster in CF manufacturing/longevity.

All the engineering responses aside, there is something intangible about the feel of a good, well-balanced steel road frame. I can't really describe it, but I can feel it. I'm saddened by the fact that younger generations may never experience it for themselves. The little bit extra weight won't matter to most unless you have to climb in races with much lighter bikes.

The only analogy I can think of is the search for perfection with digital recording of any kind compared to traditional methods. It may be "perfect", but it's lifeless.

You know, I saw a quote in the current issue of Bicycling magazine. I don't know why I subscribe to it, I guess I like the self-abuse. Anyway, they were interviewing a musician who rides a Heron lugged steel bike. Bicycling asks the guy "So when are you going to get a lighter bike?"

If this is the kind of marketing-driven "journalism" that prevails in the world today, you're never going to convince anyone but the already-reverted *that's us* that a steel frame is not only "just fine", but "probably better".

Geeze, I hate that magazine. "HEY, THERE'S A RECESSION ON, LET'S PRINT A BUYER'S GUIDE CHOCK-FULL OF MULTI-THOUSAND DOLLAR BIKES, THAT'LL MAKE PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY CAN'T PAY THEIR MORTGAGE." They are so out of touch with reality, it's not even funny. To think that I almost worked there...

Pete

I ride vintage steel exclusively. My bikes serve my commuting and recreational purposes exceedingly well, they are reliable and cheap to maintain, and they look right and feel right to me. I enjoy showing up for a group ride on the oldest bike, occasionally the only steel bike. I don't mind it when someone comes up with a snide remark, such as "steel is real ... heavy," because I do not believe my Bianchi's 10kg of mass slows me down appreciably. (I am actually one of the better climbers in the group.)

I am also a big believer in buying decent-quality goods, taking proper care of them, and keeping them as long as I realistically can. (I currently drive a 1996 Audi A4 2.8Q, a hand-me-down from my younger son :), and my neighbor is still driving my 1988 Dodge Aries (K-car) station wagon.)

I agree. I don't know why I subscribe. Probably for the bike porn. I know I won't be renewing my subscription, though.
-Gene-

Taken in context, Mr. Schwinn isn't saying anything about carbon v steel with that comment. He is stating that bicycles can be made lighter than what the pros ride, but are not. Real professional frames are over-designed to provide better performance in a variety of competition scenarios.

I would encourage everyone to listen to this discussion, it covers some very good topics regardless of your standpoint on frame material.

I've noticed that people who aren't really into bikes are more likely to pick up my bike to see how heavy it is when checking it out. People who know bikes on the other hand tend to lean in for a better look at the logos without even touching the bike.