andr0id

That looks to be my size, you should send it to me.

dr_lha

From my cold, dead hands!

indyfabz

I am the man of steel. So there.

late

I have a Gunnar Sport, and love it. I've ridden it across Italy, from the Adriatic to the Med.

Yes, it's expensive, and I don't regret a penny of it. If I made a list of the top 5 best things I ever bought, the Sport would be high on the list.

https://gunnarbikes.com/site/bikes/sport/

https://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/fr...5_2493crx.aspx

Trakhak

Excellent post. Quoting for truth, including the suggestion that you should test ride at least a few bikes---steel (if any are available), aluminum, and carbon.

My perspective: I rode pro-level steel bikes from 1965 to 2005. Now all I ride are aluminum bikes. There's nothing wrong with the ride of a well-designed steel bike, but the same is true of well-designed aluminum and carbon bikes.

jsigone

I'm a fan of carbon, well engineered carbon is great. Stick with the big companies as they do the engineering work and also offer a lifetime warranty if ever needed.

Plus its 4-5 pounds lighter than steel w/ same grouppo and wheels

cyccommute 

A shorter story is "no you don't". There are plenty of choices out there that aren't steel and will hold up just fine. There is nothing structurally wrong with aluminum and there is nothing structurally magic about steel. I've broken steel and aluminum (2 of each) and owned steel and aluminum bikes in about equal number. Aluminum holds up to a heavy rider just fine. I haven't got a lot of experience with carbon...just haven't gotten around to buying one yet... but I do have a couple of bikes with carbon forks that I have zero worry about.

I even tour on aluminum and have for the last 13 years.


Don't sell aluminum short. People get all wiggy about aluminum and spread all kinds of untruths about the material. It isn't brittle. It isn't prone to breaking. It won't "shatter like a piece of glass". It's a good material if you can't afford titanium or carbon. I have a Cannondale Synapse that is relatively light for a bike with Sora components (22 lbs) and it rides like a dream. It doesn't have a harsh ride either.

More importantly, a Synapse 7 alloy is in (or below) the $1200 price range you are looking at...$950 at REI. A Synapse Carbon with similar components is $1800 retail.

And if you are really worried about the durability of aluminum, what parts are you willing to give up to avoid using it? Handlebars, seatpost, wheels, hubs, crank...i.e. just about everything you bolt to the bike.

Jarrett2

That's not true. Maybe it once was, but not with modern steel. Not to mention, a 250 lb rider doesn't need to be on a ultra light carbon bike anyway. They weren't made for them.

OP, careful here. This poster is known for giving bad advice around here.

There's nothing wrong with aluminum durability, it just rides crappy compared to a good steel bike.

Titanium is also a good option as mentioned earlier, but I vote steel over that personally. I don't think you would go wrong with either.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of it. If you haven't ridden anything but aluminum, it will seem perfect. Then you ride carbon and you don't want to ride aluminum anymore. Same with titanium, same with steel. Lots of folks haven't ridden a nice modern steel bike to know the difference.

Here's a good excerpt from Black Mountain Cycles that sums it up nicely:

Why steel frames?

Every time someone jumps on a steel bike after spending years on an aluminum beast or waif-like carbon bike, the rider comment of “wow, that rides really nice” is heard. Steel has been around forever as a frame material. Its properties are incredibly well documented. The life-span of steel is well known. It’s a frame that doesn’t necessarily have to be handled with kid gloves. So, while every big bike manufacturer is spending countless dollars developing the next big thing, steel quietly rolls under the many bicycle aficionados as the material of choice that never went out of style.

BrazAd

Jarrett, thanks for all of your input! My biking brother has read this thread and he liked your input a lot.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts here, also. LOTS of good stuff to think about and consider.

Where does a Sully Cross Check fit in the general scheme? My brother found one tonight - a 2015 model - that the owner is selling for $700 OBO... decent components and the right size. He's gonna go check it out on Thursday (he talked to the owner on the phone tonight) and said he might buy it for himself if I don't want it (we ride the same size).

Gary

Jarrett2

Surly Cross Check is a nice steel bike:

Cross-Check | Bikes | Surly Bikes

It's going to be a little heavier than the other ones that have been mentioned. The tires that come on it stock are made more for gravel grinding, but a swap to a smaller road tire would change the feel of the bike significantly. You could take it off road some as well as on road. That's a plus if you want one do all kind of bike.

Jarrett2

I'm digging the blue changes!

jsigone

Steel may be real to some, but it's heavy as **** and flexes where I don't want it too. Not in a road bike. Maybe a MTB bike but still heavy as $hit and taxes you on the steeper dirt climbs. Been there, done that, won't do again..ever

Most of what a rider "feels" is from the bike fit, wheel build, tires and pressure used. The wallet can feel the rest

dr_lha

Given that the frame on my steel road bike weighs 3.9 pounds, how exactly is that possible?

tunavic

OP, purchase a quality bike and don't worry about the material it's made of too much. It really makes little difference when other factors are just as important if not more so. Wheels, tires and more are what you should look into more than steel or not steel.

Additionally, many of the shills for steel here own steel bikes and have no choice than to tell you how great they are, if only to justify their own purchase.

sstorkel

No, he isn't. In this particular case, I think you've drunk a little too much of the "steel is real" Kool-aid to be at all objective on the subject. You repeatedly sing the praises of steel, without ever mentioning any of it's downsides...

Agree with you about the durability, disagree vehemently about ride quality. My aluminum touring bike is better than any of the name-brand steel touring bikes I tried. The same goes for my aluminum mountain bikes. Many people's idea that aluminum frames ride poorly comes from the era when an aluminum bike included an aluminum fork, oversized tubing (= stiffer), and ultra-narrow tires. Modern aluminum bikes frequently include a carbon fiber fork, tubing diameters picked to maximize ride comfort rather than easy of welding, and the ability to run wider tires. Lots of folks haven't ridden a nice modern aluminum bike to know the difference.

Willbird

With all the considerations in a bike purchase IMHO frame material is just one. As for steel bike shopping Iv explored most of Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana test riding all kinds of bikes from $600 at first to $2500 recently and steel was not even in the picture.

Jarrett2

Downsides... let's see. It's slightly heavier than aluminum or carbon fiber these days. It can rust if left outside, but lots of frames are coming with ED coating these days negating that. Harder to find is definitely a downside. Those are about the only ones I can think of.

Some people say flex, but I can only assume they haven't ridden a modern steel bike lately. I'm a 280 lb rider with 327 FTP (last time I checked) and I can't detect flex on my steel bikes, even on the 13-14% climbs down the street from my house. If that flex was an issue, I wouldn't be able to power up those hills with out rubbing or shifting problems and they simply don't exist on my steel bikes.

The other downside is perception. As you see here, people who like steel bikes tend to be considered Kool Aid drinkers or Luddites and don't get to participate in the ego massaging that comes along with buying and showing off the latest and greatest carbon fiber design. You don't show up to a group ride with a new steel bike and get the ooh's and aah's like you do if you show up with this year's fancy carbon shape. The upside to that is your steel bike won't look obsolete next year when the new carbon fiber designs hit the shelves and the marketing drive begins.

Another positive for steel is more in the peace of mind department. Knowing that Specialized has a weight limit of 240 lbs on their bikes and riding one when you weigh more than that, there is a thought in the back of you mind that you are going to crack the carbon fiber. And people do. I know several folks that have chips and cracks in their carbon frames. Some that have had them replaced due to cracking and they are a lot lighter than me.

Every time my Roubiax would creak or bump into something, I felt like I had to go over it with a magnifying glass to make sure no cracking issues had started. If you search these forums you find a lot of posts where people post a chip in their carbon fiber frames and ask, "Is this bad?!" With steel, I don't worry about that at all. I just ride and enjoy the ride. If the bike accidentally falls over, so what? It might chip the paint at best.

The weight is a non issue as a 250+ lb rider doesn't need to be on a ultra light frame of any material. When you can easily build a 18 lb steel bike, that's really as light as a 250+ lb rider needs, in my opinion.

I have and do. Not only have a owned and put thousands of miles on modern aluminum, but also modern carbon fiber, modern titanium and modern steel. Well, really only 50 or so miles on titanium, but lots and lots of miles on aluminum and carbon fiber.

In fact, you go back to 2014, you will find me posting on here talking about how great carbon fiber bikes are compared to aluminum. I couldn't believe how much better that my Roubaix rode than my Secteur on chipseal roads. If you are familiar with them, the Roubaix and Secteur have the exact same geometry, but the Roubaix is carbon fiber and the Secteur is aluminum. People say frame material doesn't matter, but owning and riding those two bikes made it clear to me that frame material does matter.

One thing to point out here is if you only ride on smooth roads, none of this will make a huge difference. Once you get off the bike trail and start riding out of the city streets and onto rougher country roads, these differences really start to manifest.

While I was happy with my carbon fiber discovery, I goofed up and rode a modern steel bike back to back with my carbon fiber over a long weekend trip. Similar to going from aluminum to carbon fiber, riding steel was an improvement in the way the bike felt and I was hooked.

Here are a couple of pics about the weight thing:

This is a cutting edge, latest and greatest, $5600, size 56 Specialized Roubaix that has a max weight limit of 240 lbs and will likely be an outdated design in a couple of years. This is the type of road bike a dealer will put a 250 lb rider on if they walked into their store:


This is my considerably less expensive, size 58 steel bike with a heavier groupset on it:


Does that look like 4-5 lbs difference? I've ridden both frames and my steel rides better, imo.

prathmann

Considering that one has pedals, disk brakes, cages, and aero wheels I'd say not 4-5 lbs., but at least 1-2 which is about what I'd expect based on frame material.

dr_lha

Well I own and have owned a few aluminum bikes as well. The reason I recommend steel, is that I hated how those bikes rode, especially as a heavier rider. I paid good money for those bikes, so I actually find it pretty insulting that your suggestion that my opinion is just based on "justifying my purchase" rather than on actual real world experience.

For the record, I've never owned a CF bike, so you'll see that I never, ever, bad mouth or comment on the quality of CF bikes on BF. I only speak about my own personal experience.

Jarrett2

You forgot to mention a lighter groupset and much lighter, carbon crank on the Roubiax. Not to mention extremely light, carbon fiber cages. AND the bike is a full size smaller which is a considerable weight difference right there. Much fewer spokes on those aero wheels as well.

I know, its hard to justify, but there are numbers and they don't lie.

Don't forget the price difference as well. At least half if not more for a bike that weighs roughly the same.

But hey, for $5600, you get a nice pencil holder built right into the side of the down tube on the Roubiax

cyccommute 

Classy! Devolve to personal attacks rather than present anything to back up your claims.

Nope. Still mostly true. "Modern" steel isn't any different from steel 30 years ago. It still has the same density and the same strength properties. If you can find a steel frame from a mass producer of steel frames, the bike is still going to weigh about the same as it did 30 years ago. Sure there are some custom steel frames that are made that are relatively light but that lightness comes at a price. They cost more and they probably have similar limits as carbon does. To use your own words, "a 250 lb rider doesn't need to be on an ultra light [steel] bike anyway. They weren't made for them."

Crappy bikes give crappy rides. A crappy steel bike will give just as poor a ride as a crappy aluminum bike. A good aluminum bike gives as good a ride...and, in some respects, a better ride...as a good steel bike. The problem is finding an affordable new good steel bike. Your Gunnar example isn't exactly an "affordable" steel bike. The frame alone starts at the price that BrazAd wants to end at.

Titanium is no more magical than steel. I own two of them and really can't tell the difference between the ride of titanium and aluminum for similar designs. My titanium road bike doesn't ride any differently than my Synapse.

Uh huh. Do you think they might be trying to sell something? And, again, a bit above the price point that BrazAd wants.

cyccommute 

Thank you.

Jarrett2

I apologize, it was a little over the top. Suffice to say we disagree on a lot of things related to cycling.

We agree there. Titanium feels like aluminum to me too.

cyccommute 

Apology accepted. And I have to say that may be the first time that has happened.

Frankly, I don't mind disagreements. If we all agreed on everything, there'd be nothing to learn.

birru

Total Bike Forums newbie here (this is my 2nd post!) but I'd say maybe take a look at the Jamis Quest Elite. The 56cm I tried weighed 21lbs including test ride pedals. About $1800 with a Reynolds 631 steel frame and a Shimano 105 groupset. The brakes are out of group, but I think that's mainly for wider tire clearance. Overall I found it to be an awesome bike with a smooth ride.