I was at the local watering hole shooting the breeze about bikes with the local bike shop owner. Having a few drinks I got anxious to instigate my love for steel. He said that steel is overpriced junk compared to carbon. I said "Well the Waterford R33 is only about a pound heavier than most carbon bikes on the market."

Then I made a 1000$ wager that I could run over any carbon frame bike with my 700C touring machine and reduce it to rubble. He declined the offer.

When he denounced Richard Schwinn as selling overpriced "steel junk" I got really mad. I took my fine ale and tossed it all over his shirt. Then I casually made a break for the door. Not running but a calm composed walk. He proceeded to land one punch to my head. The others in the local bar restrained him from doing further damage.

I have always resented the overpriced service of the bike shop. I've always wanted to throw some form of fecal matter on the guy for his lousy shop service...And the moral of the story is don't lose your cool. Its no excuse to be on the same level as the jerk you are opposed to. It's sad to think I wasted such a good beer on such a ******.

Lets not denounce our fellow roadie who rides carbon, let us not acknowledge them at all. May the Velo God's smile as new men and women decide that life with the torch is the only way to be.

Um, Steel is real?

Last week I compared my new carbon Roubaix with my steel Marinoni. The Roubaix rides a lot smoother, less buzz by far. Hell it even has less buzz in the bars than my Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30 touring bike.
I have 25 or so steel bikes and one carbon. If I had to do a century tomorrow you can bet I will be taking that new Specialized Roubaix.
If I was going on a nice 30 mile Sunday run I would take the Marinoni but the steel bike has seen its last century for now.

Shame on you for losing your cool. A polite challenge to a pistol duel at 20 paces would have been much more civilized.

+1. While I dearly love vintage bicycles, there's no denying the advance of technology. I can fully appreciate why a somebody on a contemporary, carbon fibre bicycle would would be puzzled by the appeal of vintage steel. For me, the only thing negative aspect of the ride of modern bicycles, is that most amplify the drivetrain noise.

I was thinking 1/4" ball bearings flung with slingshots made from forks and old inner tubes. Helmets and eye protection mandatory.

I'd wear a mouthguard as well.

As a side note. You actually committed an assualt by throwing the contents of your glass at the guy.

What is this buzz you speak of? I rode a hilly century last weekend on a new-to-me aluminum frame/carbon fork rig. It's got 'comfort compact' geometry, so slightly longer chainstays and wheelbase than a comparable 'road race' geometry. I swapped the wheels/tires from a Reynolds 531 framed steel bike which is a good 7-10lbs heavier. It's also far more flexy, and feels more sluggish up hills. However, over rough pavement and gravel roads, it's a much cushier ride. Despite this, I couldn't tell much difference in the overall ride. There really wasn't much more buzz in the aluminum frame, but neither did the carbon fork seem to dampen buzz vs. steel. In fact, I think carbon is probably stiffer than my steel forks. I did hit about a mile stretch of milled pavement awaiting resurfacing, and I could detect the increased stiffness of the frame vs. my 531 steel bike. It threw the bike around a bit more. The aluminum/carbon bike isdefinitely nicer up hills with the reduced weight and added stiffness.

I seem to remember your Marinoni has narrower tires than the Roubaix. That makes a huge difference.

Here's my $.02 on the subject.

Carbon fiber as a bicycle frame material has some admirable qualities, including terrific strength to weight ratio, the ability to be molded to provide finely tuned ride characteristics by changing the thickness of the lay-up and/or the direction of the fibers in the composite matrix in any area of the frame, and it can be designed to dampen vibration or to transmit it unattenuated. In aerospace applications, CF structures really shine because the material doesn't fatigue like aluminum (aluminum fuselages of pressurized airplanes expand and contract with each flight to altitude and descent to landing, and over time the stresses of these pressurization/depressurization cycles eventually cause fatigue related failure, so pressurized aluminum airframes are life-limited and retired from service after a specified number of cycles). Also, CF structures in aerospace applications aren't ordinarily subjected to impacts severe enough to cause the material to fail. These characteristics are all goodness.

The problem with carbon fiber when used in bicycle frame applications is the failure mode, especially when subjected to impact forces beyond the ultimate loads for which the structure was designed. CFRP has very low elongation and is ductility challenged; it doesn't permanently bend like metals do, and when bent beyond the limits of its elasticity will fail suddenly and often spectacularly. Simply put, failure of CF composite structures is far more likely to be sudden and catastrophic than steel or titanium in the same application subjected to the same impact and/or loading stresses just because of the nature of the material. Good design won’t negate this basic inherent weakness, although the problem can be mitigated by building in a huge safety margin. But that comes at the expense of additional material which means more weight, essentially negating any weight advantage. Also, damage to carbon fiber structures is much more likely to be hidden from visual inspection within the carbon fiber/epoxy resin matrix than damage to steel, aluminum, or titanium which almost always shows up as surface stress cracks before failing.

By definition, ductility is the ability of a material to plastically deform without breaking or fracturing, and elongation is a measurable physical property that quantifies ductility.

Here are the elongation percentages for materials used to make bicycle frames. The ductility of the material varies directly with elongation.

Steel - 4130 Chromium-molybdenum is 25%
Steel - Reynolds 531 Manganese-molybdenum is 15%
Titanium - 3/2.5 is 15%
Steel - Reynolds 953 is 14%
Aluminum - 7005 is 12%
CFRP - as used in bicycle frames is typically 1% to 2%

CFRP breaks while metals bend. Both will fail if stressed beyond the structure's designed ultimate load, but at least there's better chance you'll still have a frame (albeit bent) under your butt if you're on a steel bike than a bunch of carbon splinters.

Steel will almost always make for a slightly heavier frame than CF, titanium, or aluminum because as a material it is density challenged, but with newer steel alloys offering thinner walled OS tubes without compromising strength or stiffness, the weight penalty in a similarly sized frame can often be less than a pound.

We're basically talking risk/benefit analysis here; does the benefit of a slightly lighter frameset outweigh (pardon the pun) the higher risk of injury or death resulting from sudden catastrophic failure? For me, it doesn't.

Just MHO.



Here’s the story on the Giant TCR
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/451756-carbon-explosion-crashed-my-tcr.html



Here’s the story on the Scott CR1 Team:
https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/320405-safety-issue-help-required.html



Here’s the story on the Pinarello Prince:
https://forums.roadbikereview.com/sho...d.php?t=158543

BTW, here's the pothole that caused the Giant TCR failure. It's 1.5 inches deep.

Did you actually get in a (somewhat) physical fight over bicycles? haha.. I gotta say thats pretty good, dedicated!

well for me steel is queen of the heap. a few of us were breifly discussing bikes at work a weeks or so ago and some was about to speak when I calm stated "I really don't even care for my Ti bike that much" I swera he turned pale as the words he was about to speak caught in his throat. it my be in my head but I just feel my MAX frame give a better overall ride than my Ti bike.

carbon is for planes and police cars https://www.carbonmotors.com/

A few of my thoughts. I've got a steel 2200 Waterford, a Ti Seven and a CF Cervelo. The differences between the ride isn't all that much. What's funny is even though the Seven is custom, all three have virtually the same geometry. But you can't beat CF for the way a frame can be built with it. The CF feels feels a little snappier especially in sprinting and accelertaing on climbs.

Sure CF can suffer sudden failures, as does any material. I remember a flood of pics years ago about several Serotta's coming apart at the headtubes from potholes. I had a mishap with an Al frame but kept riding it thinking there was no harm. Someone noticed from tiny little lines across the paint and pointed it that's where the Al compressed and popped back. It was a disastor waiting to happen.

Im not worrying about my new carbon frame failing. If I notice a something wrong in 5 or 10 years Specialized will replace it (lifetime warranty).
I have many tri buddies that have been racing CF frames for a decade now. Nobody has crashed due to a broken frame but one guy crashed one to many times and had his frame replaced. But for a non-racing guy this doesn't concern me to much.
I am going to update my comparison thread. it seems the tires on the Roubaic roll on the same contact patch as the 23C on the Marinoni. The Roubaix tires are labeled 23/25C and are supposed to have the conatct patch of a 23 but the aspect ratio of a 25 which should translate into a better ride.
My experiment will be complete this weekend and the results are what I originally thought.

No pistols, just bikes and a friendly game of follow the leader, you each take turns. Hang tough when he starts going up the biggest hills in town. When it's your turn head for the mountain bike trails. He'll stop. You'll win.

My smoothest riding bike is modern TIG'ed Taiwanese steel with a carbon fork.

Scooper, nicely written and everthing you say about the carbon failure mode is true, but it's not the failure mode that causes the injuries to the cyclist, it's the impact itself. In most cases, you'll be kissing asphalt or metal regardless of whether you're riding carbon fibre or steel. Whether the frame failurs catostophically is immaterial at that point, except to your wallet.

While thinner metals can challenge carbon fibre, you're still likely to come away from any significant impact with a useless frame, despite metals' elongation properties, due to buckling caused by the increase in the diameter to thickness ratio.

However, I will admit that carbon fiber is more prone to latent catostrophic failure after an impact. Frames that look they've survived at crash could failure unexpectedly. This is a legitimate concern, just like it is with helmets.

Hah wow, I've never felt that passionate about it. I usually roll my eyes when someone from either camp tries to debate. If you like carbon then great, check out the carbon bikes. If you like steel, check out the steel bikes. Both have different qualities for different people b/c people like different things.
I'll be getting a Specialized Tarmac because I can afford it. I'd like an IF Crown Jewel, but I can't afford it.

It's good that carbon and steel aren't mutally exclusive...

...and each one of us is free to enjoy either or both.


Greg

the best part about this is the pics of broken CF bikes...

the real test of CF is this...

will the C&V boards be full of guys collecting CF bikes that are actually ridable?

will CF still be sought after in 30 years like steel is today?

Saw a top of the line 6.1 Modone Trek yesterday at one of the better bike shops in the SF bay area and was truly impressed for what it was with it's loads of high tech design, but then I saw the price tag $11.000+!! WTHeck!! I was totally speechless and dumbfounded!. Can eanyone in their right mind even justify the 3 or 4 pound advantage over a good steel framed bike that the $11K buys you with that Madone?? A potential living room display queen for some dude with deep pockets IMHO.
And now to think that the inherent fragility of some CF frames have when subjected to 1.5 inch deep potholes...............I'm fine with my steel bike!

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV - Cheap, simple, but I love it!

I'm nervous about my latest bike, a 2001 CAAD 4 Cannondale with a stock CF fork.

I built the new frameset up from scratch this past June. While I have no complaints about the ride and handling, and I do not race, I am heavy (currently over 250 lbs), and the NH roads here in the mountains are rough. They suffer from severe winter freezing (frost line is sometimes 6-8 feet deep) and spring thawing. Cracks, potholes, halfa$$ patch jobs, and uneven surfaces are abundant, and impossible to always avoid.

I'm seriously considering replacing the original CF fork (made by Time for Cannondale) with a nice steel model. Any advice, guidance, and suggestions is appreciated. Thanks!

Hey, I love steel... but not so much that I wanna take a punch to the head...

Yes, someone who earns their living by winning bike races especially if he gets it for free. And remember there are people for whom that is not a lot of money. For a couple of years my son dated a young lady whose parents lived in a gated community up the road filled with mansions, golf courses, and the country club. They had a place in Aspen, a place in Hawaii, and their own jet. That guy could buy any bike he wanted (he actually did ride and although I never saw his bike I'm pretty sure it was something like that). Alas they broke up

But I'm also quite sure you could find a similarly equipped steel frame bike for about the same price. I seem to recall that new Richard Schwinn built Paramount being $7000 for the frame only so when you add a new SR group to it it's going to be north of $10k.

Bike companies naturally keep pushing the limit. I seem to remember just a few years ago they were in $7k - $9k range but came with top of the line aluminum semi-aero profile rims. Then they switched to the deep profile carbon fiber rims and the prices jumped a couple thousand. IIRC those rims were going for about $3k a pair bought separately.

If it weren't for the fact that you can still find nice vintage steel frames cheap I would bemoan the demise of the mass produced lugged steel frame. Back in the day they produced very nice quality lugged steel frames for reasonable prices but today for the most part those frames are all TIG welded. And the lugged frames that are produced are as much works of art as bicycle frames and priced accordingly.

Yeah, well new bike prices are always jaw dropping regardless of the material, want a custom steel frame? Better have 3 grand laying around, once you add your group, wheels and other parts it basically rounds out the same. Didn't someone post some paramount sales brochures from the 70s where you can buy a record equipped paramount for like $300? I guess maybe that was a LOT of money back then. Then again around 1983 someone told me they bought a peaugeot UO-10 or something (or whatever model was a step up from the UO-8 for about that much, ouch!

I'll stick to the $10 recycle center dump finds thank you very much, I can ride em just as far and as fast as the rest!

Yes, they will. Remember there are many reasons people collect vintage bicycles. Some like the fine craftmanship, others the value. But many people like the style of the bike and the memories it brings them of those simpler times of days gone buy. For me and many of you that's currently the 60's to the 80's. But 30 years from now we'll be old geezers and the middleaged collectors will be remembering the bikes of their youth and seeking that Holy Grail bike they couldn't afford back them. And that will be carbon fiber bikes and things like the Trek Madone. I'm quite sure that accounts for the price increases we are seeing in the vintage light-weight market today where 10 years ago balooners and Stingrays were the hot item. Time marches on and there is nothing we can do about it.

At last year's North American Handmade Bicycle Show in Portland, Lance Armstrong plunked down $12,000 for a new lugged steel bike built by Canadian Sam Whittingham (Naked Bicycles, Quadra Island, B.C.). This is a guy who rides Trek Madones professionally.

Newspaper article