Exactly! Really, guys, how often do you get a chance to be the kind and patient Sage, Senior Statesman, and/or Bike God. Suffer the fools with kindness and gentle enlightenment. You will have a following. How often does that happen?

Sheldon, can you hear me?

That is High modulus Carbon.

Steel may be the new boutique material Because a frame can be made custom in size for a reasonable upcharge. Most carbon frames are of set geometry, yes one can get a Calfee, Crumpton (my favorite) and a few others, but not cheap, like $5k approx for a frame. A custom 953 bike even tigged can be put together for much less. There will be some who see the advantage of not having to run a 135 mm stem to make the bike fit. Some may find that 280 mm of visible seat post may not work that well after all, and as they age and become less flexible, Pro racer displacement between the seat and bars is not the ticket. That and if one crashes a steel bike and it is still straight, there is little worry of it failing without notice later, one cannot say that for composite.

Do these newer steels still have the ride quality of the older ones? I would think not since they're so much harder, right? If that's the case, what's the benefit of using them over another very light weight stiff material like CF or AL anyway?

I ride steel frame with newer 9 speed brifters etc and while it's heavier than others in my group I'm with htem all the time.
I get comments all the time about my bike and the steel etc. Everyone has hydroformed Aluminium and Crabon Fibre, and they all look alike. I can roll up on lugged Reynolds 531 with a unique paint job and I get questions, comments, and recollections of all their old steel bikes they had back 20 years ago. Pretty cool actually.

Only met one other with a vintage bike, a Cinelli, and another with a more modern steel Lemond.

They also ride like aluminum bikes. I can't tell a difference between that and my CAAD9.

Here are some random opinions.

Carbon frames are very cheap to manufacture and the material composition and method of construction can be changed to reflect price point. They could drop prices to 1/3 of current at the manufacturing level with little trouble. This is not the case with tubular metal products.

I also don't see a lot of big improvements in metal in the immediate future. The machines to make metal tube are huge and expensive and the new materials shred the dies. I know that a lot of tubes are culled during manufacture and the stuff is pretty challenging to work with. Carbon is just getting easier. A future where frames are custom built from carbon by huge factories and directly shipped to the user isn't far off with lugged construction and the current crazy monetary valuations

Metal is still the best for styling and the performance is still very amazing but it's easy to how it got where it did with manufacturing costs. Perhaps the next good challenge will be from some aluminum/ti/steel alloy that can be soldered in a home depot parking lot.

It's not the hardness. The elasticity (stretchiness) of steel is pretty much the same for any steel, even comparing 1020 (hiten, gaspipe, et cetera) to 953. The differences are in strength and hardness, and it's strength that's significant. The durability of a tube has to do with its strength. Stronger steel lets the wall thickness be less. Thinner walls make the finished tube less resistant to bending and twisting, so diameter is increased to restore those forms of stiffness to the desired level. That's the overall design process for a frame tube.

One downside of the thinnest constructions is wall collapse, beer-canning. Steel can be fragile.

CF and aluminum are demonstrably superior to Ti and steel (CF and aluminum are quantifiably lighter for the same strength or stronger for the same weight), but where's the fun in logic?

Humans crave religion, and "steel is real" provides ample opportunity for the emotionally gratifying exercise of faith in that which cannot be proven: the superior "ride" of steel. I rode high-end Italian and English Columbus and Reynolds bikes from 1965 to 2000, and it's been aluminum all the way for me since.

All bikes with a given geometry and wheelset ride the same, and aluminum is lighter than Ti and steel and cheaper than CF.

This is the best summary of the properties of steel used in bike frames I've ever seen.

One aspect of carbon versus custom steel is carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of a custom steel frame was perhaps a 10th (typically I don't recall the actual numbers!!!) of a carbon frame. I think it was in Bicycling.

Now I want a carbon triangle frame w/ custom steel stays and fork! Best of both worlds!:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Wogsterca;12039929]It's just that, that is why there may be noise about it, on the roadie forum, some of these new steels are getting pretty light. If course the big shops are only interested in CF, I can see the day when AL gets the boot and you will see almost everything with CF frames, including the wallyworld specials. Mind you, there will still be the cottage builders silver brazing lugged steel.[/QUOTE]

And we'll pay out the nose for it :(

Or...we'll continue to buy steel bikes from the prior age for far less.

Some of the mega-posters with XX,XXX posts on the Road Forum should take the time to learn the subject matter.

This thread "torn between titanium and steel", from the frame-builders forum, is of high value and is a good read: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...nium-and-steel

You're right. You could also point out that carbon-fiber frames, like synthetic fabrics, are essentially table-scraps left by a behemoth petrochemical industry, mostly destined to join the gigantic whirling mass of plastics circling the seas and washing up on beaches for millenia.

Without the car industry, carbon frames would not be so cheap (monetarily) to make. We wouldn't have 1/3 mile-long oil tankers and 3000 acre oil refineries without the automobile industry. Carbon-fiber and synthetics and plastics, they all piggy-back on the car/gasoline market.

lets be serious here, I'm afraid that Steel bikes are never going to been seen in the pro circuit,
with the exception of Cyclocross and maybe Track.
However, I think we're starting to see a trend towards more comfortable riding, touring and what we
used to call sport touring bikes. The other trend I see is an appreciation for hand built frames from
both small and large builders (i.e Richard Sachs vs Serotta).
Look at the attendance at NAHBS. I went to the 1st one and there were maybe 25 booths and 100
folks walking around.

I can't wait for Wal Mart to get in on it, hello 30lb CF bikes!

This might sound counter intuitive, but I think high sales costs might also be part of marketing. It could be similar to how if you cut the price of colognes and perfumes, they don't sell as well...because they're perceived to have less worth. I know part of my mind values a bike I paid more money for when I ride it...and I think the same might be true of the most expensive CF bikes. If they were to drop in value to a third, they might not sell as well.

There is no question in my mind that the move towards aluminum and CF was generated by profit and not material advantage. Most of the better racers I knew were less concerned about weight and more concerned about comfort, stiffness...etc. Didn't Merckx once say cutting half a pound might save you seconds on a climb but loose you minutes on the descent?

I've considered a custom frame as well, and after reading the thread you've linked, some of my doubts are validated. It's really a crap-shoot. How is a frame builder to know an individual rider's preferences? I don't even know my own. I have an idea of what I want, but I've tried literally dozens of frames and can't come up with any generalizations regarding geometry or frame material. Too many variables.

Currently, my mass-produced, cookie-cutter aluminum Giant OCR2 'feels better' to ride than my '84 Waterford Paramount, which feels overly stiff and choppy to me. Same wheels and tires. Go figure.

Yes. He was talking about ultralight, ultraflexible steel frames handling poorly on descents. This is one of the reasons I prefer my ultralight bikes to be made of large-section aluminum tubes.

Makes sense. Other things equal, lighter equals 'feels better' equals more fun.

[QUOTE=KonAaron Snake;12040957]Yes, I suspect in 2045 some enterprising young fellow will take my 1975 Raleigh's steel frame, and refurbish it, yet again. Probably will not be me the next time, I will be 84, if I am still around!

Now everything will be CF in the next 10 years, providing oil prices stay relatively flat. I don't expect that to happen though. Think about it this way, the city of Beijing,China is limiting the number of new cars per year in that city to ONLY 120,000. Between China and India you have 1/3rd of the planets population, and they are buying cars like nuts, this is why, even though the US economy is continuing to circle the bowl, the price of oil is $89/barrel. Every projection I hear on oil prices is that it will pass through $100 this year. One projection was that we could see $200/barrel by 2015. The demand for oil is increasing, the supply is stagnant, no new reserves have been added recently.

Actually, my Giant weighs in at about 26lbs with fenders, leather saddle, et al. The Paramount is just under 23lbs. They both climb equally well, it seems to me, although I think the Giant has a slight edge and less flex. But what's crazy to me is that over longer distances, the Paramount wears me out in a way the Giant doesn't. I've tried other modern aluminum frames with more race oriented geometry, and they tend to beat me up, so there's something about the geometry of the Giant that just works for me.

On the other hand, I've had steel 'sport touring' frames constructed of 531, and currently my Trek TX500 with Ishiwata 022, that feel like dogs up the hills.

[QUOTE=Wogsterca;12041445]Totally OT, but I think a lot of folks are being a bit alarmist about our economy. China is still mostly an agrarian, poor country and they'll face PLENTY of hurdles and obstacles...growing pains...as they continue to develop. India even more so. Development is fine, but they are crippled with over population and poverty. The world isn't ending tomorrow. China's government also simply isn't compatible with free trade...and something will give (probably their Government). You;re assuming oil use per person is going to be consistent...I doubt it is. There will be some whizz bang technical marvel...neccessity is the mother of invention.

They already tried, but failed. Bikes weren't that bad weight wise, but not uber light. They were spec'ed nicely gruppo wise, but they only sold them online and only had 3 sizes with no geometry chart. A recipe that lead them to liquidate their stock and pull out of the "high-end" bike market. I'm glad they were not successful. You can usually find them on ebay for a decent price. They were called AC Corsa or something like that. Had fluffy copy that said they were "hand assembled by skilled Italian bike mechanics".

De gustibus, non disputandum est and all that, but
really "demonstrably superior"??

You are putting forth an argument based on a great
oversimplification with regard to materials and design
and somehow trying to sell it as science.

I'm not buying.

Regards,
Mike Larmer