I'm sorry, but I have to sound the "excessively rarefied atmosphere of idiosyncratic personal preference" alarm.

Most of the used tenspeeds you encounter will be steel. it builds a fine bike.

Most of them will be built not from the ultra thin reynolds, columbus, tange, vitus, etc tubing which makes for a great ride, but from thicker stuff.

If you choose sensible 27X1-1/4 or 700x28c tires, you'll probabaly never know the difference. They'll be more puncture resistant and long lasting, and may actually roll easier than ultranarrow tires if you choose a fine sidewall and thin inner tube.

Totally agree about the fatigue, except that a lot of bikes got bought in the 70s and 80s and weren't used much, so they're probabaly not fatigued. Check the rims for wear-the bike might be nearly new.

P.S. If tig welding is so deluxe, why are automated tig welding machines churning out bikes for walmart?

I avoid people who dismiss steel like the plague.

In defense of cottered cranks....

Cottered cranks are old-fashioned, and they are (usually) steel, but they are not necessarily bad, or cheap.

As you said, once upon a time they were found even on the best bikes. Telling people to avoid all cottered cranks is just bad advice. Good advice would be more specific, such as: avoid any 'ten speed' bike with a cottered crank made after 1975 or so. Excellent three speed bikes still had cottered cranks well into the 80's

Cranks, by which I mean crank arms, do not wear out. Bearings wear out. Chain rings wear out, and aluminum ones wear out faster than steel.

If a crank arm and chain ring are swaged together, and the chain ring wears out, then the crank is worn out. It doesn't matter whether said crank is cottered and cotterless.

The advantage of Ashtabula cranks is that the crank arms and the spindle are made from a single piece of metal, and therefore cannot move relative to one another. On three-piece cranks, whether cottered or cotterless, there is a possibility that crank arms will move relative to the spindle if not attached properly, and in such cases the movement in question will damage the crank arms. It is a question of installation; and I have seen more cotterless cranks ruined by bad installation than cottered ones.

Certainly it is true that a lot of cheap nasty bicycles came with cottered cranks, and these are bikes to avoid. But the same can be said of bikes with cotterless cranks.

Bull.

My view as a cyclist:
I have never seen an aluminum alloy handlebar fail catastrophically in such a way as to result in a "complete loss of steerage". I've seen bars damaged... and even break... but you're just trying to scare people with talk of losing steering control at speed.

My view as a professional engineer:
It's all about failure modes. Aluminum alloy does not fail suddenly and catastrophically except when manufactured in a casting process. How many cast aluminum bars have you seen? An alloy handlebar under normal use will fail by bending or cracking, hence giving the user a warning that a total failure is coming. If your handlebars are bearing such a load that they fail so suddenly that you have no warning, then you're doing something wrong.

I don't care what credentials that Leonard Zinn has attached to his name, I think he's full of it on this issue... and I've been an engineer for almost 30 years. Does that count?

I think it best to avoid trolls.

Steel is only as good as the guy who builds with it.

All my road bikes are steel, and they all handle and feel different. My Masi, though, has by far the best ride quality.

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. What new bike company do you work for? A cracked carbon frame could cost you your life, too. I had a CAAD3 Cannondale R600, IT WAS THE WORST RIDING BIKE I EVER OWNED! A carbon fiber seat post made it even worse. You also suggest riding vintage aluminum bikes, but shun vintage handlebars. Too funny.,,,,BD

This thread has brought up a rather heated debate btwn steel vs aluminum frames. Most of the stuff that is aluminum is more than I feel like spending so thats out. As far as Al bars spontaneously failing, I don't buy that. That comment mtn... made will make me look for signs of fatigue on the bars before I start riding the bike hard. I've never had Al spontaneously fail (I have 30+yo Al rims on my '67 bug and there are no issues), but it can bend and crack so its up to the operator to periodically inspect components. So what I've gained from this thread is that lugged frames tend to be stronger, cottered cranks have more maintenance issues, but can work fine and Al rims tend to stop better and are more desirable than steel. The only (right now) I'm still not sure of is some people seem to frown upon stem shifters vs DT shifters. Why? Compared to all the different car sites that I'm on, you guys/ girls have been the most helpful and friendly group I've come across. Thanks for all your help!

There are a few separate issues here.

1. There is a style issue. Stem shifters are better than downtube shifters if you want to ride in an upright position; therefore wannabe racers and roadie snobs (yes, including myself, 30 years ago) tended to look down at them.

2. There is a price point issue. Stem shifters (along with cottered cranks, extensions on the brake levers, bolt-on axles, steel rims, and so on) tend to be (for lack of a better term) symptomatic of a cheap bikes. Even so, you may find them on very fine bicycles, including Schwinn Paramounts.

3. There is a mechanical issue. Comparing stem shifters with downtube shifters, downtube shifters are the simpler and more precise mechanism because there is less cable housing and fewer bends in the cable, therefore a more direct connection to the derailleurs. This is true, of course, but bogus since by the same logic, we would prefer stem shifters over bar end shifters, or brifters; and we don't.

4. On the other hand, there is also a size issue. Downtube shifters may be within easy reach on bicycles with small frames, but a tall rider on a tall framed bicycle has to reach much farther down. When I upgraded from stem shifters to downtube shifters, I really missed them!

5. Finally, there is the Campagnolo issue. Campagnolo never made stem shifters; therefore stem shifters must be bad.

There is also the issue that a stem shifter can seriously injure a gentleman if he goes over the bars!

Interesting point. Of all injuries caused when gentlemen fly over their bars, I wonder what proportion can be blamed on the stem shifters?

Yeah, that would prove to be QUITE the issue!
So stem shifters shouldn't be a deal breaker then?

I have had a steel bar fail on a three speed cruiser which I pedaled pretty hard. It did go soft and bent upward without totally breaking. I think it was too thin (light) and too wide, but it did fail and it was only about three years old.

Leonard Zinn specializes in bikes for guys who are too big for regular bikes. His estimates of how often to change may be geared for them.

An aluminum frame can fatigue. So can a steel one. However, it won't leave you without steering. More likely, it will just feel wobbly, then you'll stop and find a crack. That's a lot different than a handlebar. I broke a butt brazed joint on a cheap frame and rode home. Various forums occasionally have pictures of broken dropouts, seatpost clamps, etc. and it's more often on an aluminum frame.

A handlebar is a cantilever beam, so it flexes more. It also flexes both ways, which greatly amplifies fatigue.

An aluminum handlebar is not cast, of course, but if it is work hardened and beginning to crack, don't you think you just MIGHT be able to pull it apart with one more good heave during a sprint?

Of course, it's not too important to the present discussion because most used tenspeeds just haven't seen that much use.

It is not the proportion but the severity. Think of what those levers are pointing at.

I don't know how serious of an issue it is for guys who don't go hauling around at 20MPH, though.

Going over the bars is potentially a dangerous business; but if you're going fast enough to clear the bicycle entirely, the stem shifters won't be able to hurt you.

Deal breaker? No, not at all. I would regard them as a warning light, though. Stem shifters will in most cases indicate a bike at the lower end of the price scale, and the combination of stem shifters with cottered crank and steel rims would tend to confirm that diagnosis. So the thing to look for, if a bike has stem shifters, is contraindications, such as a forged cotterless crank, aluminum rims, leather saddle, etc. If you see a Reyonlds 531 sticker (for example), don't let the stem shifters slow you down.

Stem shifter have been known to cause serious injury to sensitive areas in collisions - even worse were the top tube mounted shifters of early 5 and ten speeds and "stick shifts" on muscle bikes - which is why they were banned from the U.S. marketplace.

It's not a matter of going over the handlebars, but if you hit something and slide forward off the seat, you could be in for a pretty nasty injury.

But since you can pretty easily change them out for down tube shifters, it shouldn't really deter you from a bike that you otherwise are interested in.

I am very familiar w/ going over the bars.... I have the dent in my chin and the fractured mandible to prove it. Thats the main reason I stopped doing bmx freestyle ramp etc and focused mainly on dirt and MTB. Thanks for the pic of the reynolds sticker.

Is it worse to nail stem shifters with your nads than just nailing the stem with your nads?

A stem won't poke through your lycra and impale you.

Maybe it's safe to ride a stem shifter bike at moderate speed, with jeans!

I think stem shifters are more likely to shift out of the way than impale you. You'd have to impact the lever exactly vertically or on an off-vertical vector that pushes the stem against its stop for the lever not to want to shift instead of impale, I'd imagine.

In reality normal riding-down-the-road type riding results in crotch-to-stem accidents so infrequently, it's of next to no consequence what type of shifters you've got.

Heck, even most BMXers stopped running stem pads years ago.

If you stay in your little ring and smaller cogs, stem shifters can actually widen the impact zone and soften the blow of the stem:

Here is my take on aluminum versus steel frames:

There's not much difference, really.

They can both be built to ride stiffly or compliantly. I don't buy the rumors that aluminum bikes are bone-jarring.

Steel frames can be repaired or modified easily.

Aluminum frames can be mass produced more cheaply, giving you a high quality product at a low price. So for a new bike, aluminum frames are a better value overall, especially if you're not concerned about modifying or repairing it. And most people are not, nor should they be.

I collect old bikes and rarely buy new bikes. That's why nearly all of my bikes are steel. There are more old steel bikes than old aluminum bikes.

If I were buying new bikes, I'd be buying aluminum. Reasons: 1. The selection is wider. 2. They ride fine. 3. I don't do modifications often, and I don't repair frames often. I do both, occasionally. 4. The value is better.

So in comparing steel with aluminum, it's important to compare ages. For old bikes, steel is the better value. For new bikes, aluminum is the better value.

A year ago, I bought my first new bike in 29 years. It's a cheapo, generic fixie/free from Nashbar. I paid $304 for the complete bike. It has an aluminum frame. The bike is truly nothing special at all. I just couldn't turn it down, at that price. And I'm very satisfied with it, ESPECIALLY the way it rides and handles. And of course, it's an aluminum frame.

I have no experience with carbon fiber. I expect I'll be speaking about it the same way I speak about aluminum in the future. They'll work out the dangers eventually, and they'll bring down the production costs. Right now, it's just too expensive for me, whether or not it's safe.

I hope this little analysis of mine is based on facts and not emotion and sentimentality. That was my goal.