+1 Syke, the UABWCF Universal Aluminum Bike With Carbon Fork, will be the cheap go-to bike in the future, while the students still have the car parked outside.... When the times change, and there are many more bike-only commuters, hybrids and the better used MTBs will ascend.

Shoulda guessed, a college student. One of those who thinks they have all the answers. :D I still remember being certain that I was right all the time back then, too. That's the purpose of one's 40's - to show you that you're wrong most of the time.

By the way, when you find out if all those CF bikes have turned into piles of dust, drop me a note at my gravesite. It'll be in Brewer, Maine.

Yeah, never forget the mass market cheap stuff, made only for the masses who supposedly have neither taste nor culture. And further ruined by being made in the millions, supposedly killing off any chance of collectibility. An amazing amount of those items turn out to be incredibly collectible.

Just off the top of my head:
The aforementioned Varsity.
First generation Ford Mustangs.
Any Harley Davidson from the Knucklehead on.
Single cam Honda CB750's.

By the way:

You realize, of course, that forty years from now (assuming that bicycles stay in production and as popular as they are now):

1. The carbon fiber frames will be old hat, common, cheap, and have been replaced by a technology that none of us can guess at.
2. Detractors on this (or whatever succeeds it) forum will be shrilly screaming that said frames are complete pieces of ****, are unstable, have a road life of three weeks before self destructing (should keep the TdF teams and the memory of Colin Chapman happy) . . . . . .. and besides, those idiot things don't look like real bicycles.
3. And by the year 2080, they'll be collectible antiques, must to the disgust of the vintage bike crowd.

sykerocker, that may become true, but look at how long steel was nearly the only choice. And look at how well it worked.

I realize that aluminum makes a lot of sense for bike frames now. Carbon fiber has some advantages, too. I'm not saying anything sucks, just that it took a lot more for steel to be considered obsolete, and many people don't consider it obsolete.

I bought a new touring bike 2 years ago. I choose a Reynolds 853 tubed Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30. Its a solid stable plush riding rig that handles big loads easy. Its a beauty in my eyes and someday it will be a classic.
I also bought a new road bike last summer. So a new carbon fiber Specialized Roubaix with the Zertz inserts in the stays, forks and seat stem (and funny looking stays they are) now lives in my garage. I've put thousands of miles on it and it rides so plush I would choose it over my Sherpa for a fast century any day. This bike is also a beauty in my eyes and since it was the bike that defined plush endurance maybe it will also be a classic. But who knows.
Steel and carbon live harmoniously in my garage.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who is deying themselves a new carbon "wonderbike" really should give one a try. They way they ride can be outstanding.
But steel bikes are far from outdated. My Sherpa says so.

The stable, at present, is twelve bikes - 11 road, 1 mtb. Of those, two are single speed (both lugged steel frames). Six are geared, lugged steel frames with either downtube or bar end shifters, only one is indexed. The remaining four are my 'modern' bikes, which I define as: brifters or trigger shifters, cassette rather than freewheel, non-lugged frame, steel is optional. Of those four, one is steel, two are entirely aluminum, and the last (my newest) is aluminum with carbon fiber fork and stays.

No, steel is not obsolete. It still has a place, and will continue to have a place as long as weight is not the absolute first consideration.

Obsolete? About the only things I'll put in the obsolete category (as in, I'll only use them on period correct bikes and see no need whatsoever to transfer them to modern frames) is downtube shifters, single pivot brake calipers, and freewheels. Their replacements (brifters, dual pivot calipers and cassettes) are significantly superior.

I'll always defend steel. If we're talking a bagged tourer, it's the only alternative I'll consider. I'm just sick to death of the constant slagging of aluminum and carbon fiber.

Addendum: Even in the days when steel was the 'only choice', it wasn't the only choice. Aluminum proved workable for frames quite a few decades ago. It's only recently that the production cost of aluminum has gotten down to the point where it finally challenged steel for the mainstream.

I'll disagree with STI vs. DT shifters. I like STI/Ergos, but they're more money, heavier, and more prone to breakage. As someone who has several bikes with sti/ergo and a few with DT...I would say different, not superior. DT shifters aren't very difficult to use and their simplicity/cost benefit/reliability advantage is significant.

For the record, I don't "slag" on aluminum or carbon. I don't expect to see carbon bikes pressed into extended, utilitarian service when they are decades old, for the reasons stated above, unlike the current situation with vintage steel bikes of all types.
I have stated my opinion in other threads, based on metallurgical theory (which has been well elucidated above, thank-you), that an aluminum frame or fork is more likely to experience a fatigue failure than a steel equivalent. To the extent this has been mitigated by "overdesigning" the structure for fatigue, the weight and ride quality of the aluminum bike has been compromised.

But I agree, carbon and aluminum certainly have their place in the bike world, however that place isn't as a desirable alternative to a steel framed bike for rugged, utilitarian, unlimited service.

A six speed freewheel's biggest flaw is that it has only six speeds, and that's not so bad. Shimano came out with six speed cassettehubs, which were a true breakthrough, but then they tossed most of its advantages by going to seven, eight, nine, and ten speeds. I still ride six speed freewheels.

And I still like single pivot brake calipers. So you don't beat me at curmudgeonliness. Let me think about my stable. I don't have the list in a file...

1971 Super Course, with everything replaced. Six speed freewheel and Mafac brakes
1973 Raleigh Twenty, with everything original. Brakes suck.
1967 Hercules 3-speed, with everything original. Brakes work in the dry but not the wet.
1982 McLean racing bike, with mostly Campy Nuovo Record, six speed freewheel, and Campy Record single pivot brakes. The brakes are excellent.
1991 Cannondale M700, mostly original. But I never ride this, and it's disassembled.
2008 Surly Cross Check, with brifters and cantilever brakes. Lovely. Yes, I love the brifters, but I don't like the price or lack of durability. I got the drivetrain used.
2008 Nashbar generic fixie with two dual pivot brakes. Aluminum frame. A darned serviceable bike with nice handling and road feel. Only $300 for the whole bike.

Wow, I have seven bikes I call my own. That's crazy. But I can't think of what to get rid of.

Well, that was an interesting ramble. Is this the thread you meant to post to? :)

And if you're drinking, can I try some of what you're having? :lol: j/k, no offense, just having fun :p

Five or six to nine speeds in the rear is a definite difference, and the advantage is on the nine. I set mine up with a corncob in the center, three climbers on the big side, one killer gear (rarely used) on the small, based around the middle gear being what I'd normally use with large chainwheel on the flats. Yeah, I shift a lot more, but the difference in performance is worth it - if that's how I'm riding that day.

Five to six is nice, as it gives you two gears in the center, rather than one, for those stretches with some minor climbs on them.

Six to seven? Meh. Big advantage there is that you get to start using brifters.

Six to eight? Not much over seven. It takes a three cog difference to really notice any real performance differences. I've yet to use 10 or 11 speed cassettes. Too expensive.

Yeah, downtube shifters are cheaper and simpler, but when you're screaming down a hill at 30mph and setting yourself up for an immediate climb as soon as you reach the bottom (common in my area), there's no way in hell I'm taking my hands off the bars to shift. I've already had one broken wrist.

I notice that when I'm out with my usual Sunday morning ride in Ashland (Poguemahone and two girls not on the forum), and I know we're going to be playing hard-ass boy-racers that day, I take the modern bike with brifters. Period. They're more efficient, so what if they're more expensive and not repairable? Yes, I shift way more often. It's nice to be able to fine tune the gearing to match the terrain and your cadence, even if it is every 500 meters.

My liking for cassettes over freewheels is in the simplicity to rolling your own gearing setups. I've only ever taken one or two freewheels apart in my life to swap cogs. It's more trouble than it's worth. With cassettes, you get the ability to swap easily. Of course, the technological improvement is completely subverted by marketing. In a perfect world, a bike shop would carry a board with individual cogs and spacers. This is obviously not a perfect world.

Single vs. dual post calipers? That's the closest in the obsolete stakes for me. Singles still work decently well. However, if that chick texting while driving cuts a fast right turn in front of me, please God, let me be riding dual post calipers.

Don't laugh, I usually do my most entertaining posts just before climbing into bed - I'd spent the previous hour with a couple of glasses of burgundy to put me in the mood to sleep.

One thing most have likely realized by now is that these are good times for bicycles. Frame materials are varied in four major groups. Steel, aluminum, Ti and carbon, with subgroups in each providing plenty of argument ammo for decades to come. After nearly twenty years riding Cannondales I've never found another bike I like as much, whatever someone rides, I hope they feel the same.

Brad

me too (and i am from the era of dual pivots)

i am almost 25 and here is my current stable:
1996 tommasin tecno- lugged columbus ELOS, campagnolo 10spd disguised as campagnolo 8spd, monolanar brakes, 32 spoke wheels

2005 scattante frameset- 7000 series butted aluminum, carbon fork, record 10spd (single pivot rear brake), campagnolo eurus wheels

2005 stattante frameset- 7000 series buttes aluminum, carbon fork, fixed gear, camapgnolo chorus/record/centaur, 32 spoke wheels

(i have a few frames and a mtb laying around but they are all "for sale" collecting dust)


of the current bikes, i like riding the tommasini best. its classy and rides great. that said, i think the record 10spd equipped scattante does a great job an "defining" the road bikes of my generation (in america).

for what its worth, here is what i lusted after as a young kid: (my parents raced/rode as long as i can remember)
klein quantum pro
specialized s-works m2 (road bike)
kestrel (anything from the early 90s)
cannondale r200

if i could afford (justify) replacing my scattante here are the bikes at the top of the list:
cannondale caad9
specailized s-works e5

i know i am only one example, but it looks like when i "grow up" i will be searching for stiff, harsh, responsive aluminum frames (lord willing i will still own the tommasini)

That's a good thought. My interest level drops to zero when technology settles on a very narrow set of design solutions. I love the NASCAR racing of the 50's and 60's, when there were widely varied competitive designs.
That's not a good analogy for racing bikes today, but not so bad for everyday bikes.