I'm pretty sure there's less waste and pollution to 4/5 bicycles manufacture compared to car.
In the end it's somewhat negligible

Manufacturers don't make carbon touring or utility bikes because it is a very retrogrouch and budget conscious market. But one could certainly make a superior CF frame for those applications.

Not EVERY way. I own a carbon bike, two aluminum bikes, and two steel bikes (plus another steel frame I plan on building up soon).

My carbon bike is slightly faster than my steel bikes, and it is also 2-3 pounds lighter. But my steel bikes sound better, they look better, and in many ways, they feel better to ride than my carbon bike.

As I said earlier I have never rode a carbon bike, but if they are anything like carbon fiber arrows which people who like them say the same thing "lighter , stronger , better" they have no soul I don't feel confidence in it no connection , like old wooden arrows or even aluminum
Besides if I was in a hurry to get there I would drive. I ride to slow a world moving to fast down for a little while
Roy

Not necessarily. A tourer needs a bit of substance to be able to hold 45+lbs of gear. A lightweight bicycle may handle quite differently when fully loaded. Also, does it really matter when hauling 45+lbs of gear. I mean the difference we're talking about between a carbon frame and a steel frame is at most one pound. It doesn't really matter does it? Also, while fixing CF is in theory easier than fixing steel, in reality the opportunities for fixing steel around the globe are so many multitudes higher than fixing carbon that you can almost call carbon unfixable in a touring setting. Af course welding thin steel tubing is not necessarily easy, but this is once more a reason why a tourer should have a bit thicker and wider tubing. It both helps with stiffness/strength and repairability.

Except that carbon doesn't do well in compression, so having rack eyelets front and back would be a bit... You know... I mean of course it can be done, but carbon doesn't really compare that well to steel in this context. You could of course bond steel with the frame to create the eyelets, but that has it's own problems, and if you start going there, why not just go with steel? I mean you're not going to notice the difference anyway on a tourer.

Didn't know I was a retro grouch. I'm just practical. Carbon in touring context isn't practical, plain and simple. And it's also extremely expensive when compared to other materials.
Read the earlier points. Again, even if a carbon tourer is possible, what is the point really? Even if I had money I'd still go with steel purely due to the earlier mentioned factors.
Price.
Eyelets
repairability
ease of use and dingproofness
scratchproofness.
etcetc

A touring bike may need to carry more equipment but carbon is extremely tunable and adaptable. There is no current market for carbon in touring bikes (for reasons see below) but there wasn't a market for carbon in racing bikes years ago.

You are also way off on the weight differences between a steel touring bike and a possible carbon frame. Just on basic density, steel is 7 times the weight per volume of carbon and the resin used to hold it together. The volume of the carbon fiber material used in the tubes is going to be more than steel because it has to be thicker but even if you used solid carbon rod for the frame, you'd likely never reach the weight of steel.

A Surly LHT has a 5 lb frame. An equivalent carbon frame would likely be 1/5 of that even for a heavy duty touring frame. For people who cut the handles off their tooth brushes to save weight but use 40 lb bicycles, I would think carbon would be an obvious choice. Aluminum certainly should be.

There is also the myth that steel bicycle frames can be fixed anywhere. It is a myth. A steel bicycle frame...even a heavy duty frame like the LHT...is too thin to be repaired by just anyone with an oxy/acetylene torch or a TIG welder. I've had the repair done by a expert welder and he was astonished by how thin the metal was and how easy it was to burn through the tubes. Some village smithy in Beyondedgeistan who is used to welding up broken trucks is going to end up with a pile of rust.

But this discussion isn't about just touring bikes. Overall steel isn't the best material for general purpose riding either as shown by the market. Steel bikes are rare even in inexpensive bikes anymore.

Or you could design the bike for racks. Many carbon bikes use aluminum dropouts and tube fittings. Those can, and do, have eyelets that are made of aluminum and work quite well.

Sorry but when it comes to touring, nearly every bicycle tourist is a retro grouch. Not one in 100 will use aluminum for a frame material for various reasons that don't really make sense.

"Aluminum is too harsh." It isn't. I have an aluminum touing bike and have had for more then 10 years. Loaded the ride is exquisitely smooth. As an added benefit, the frame is stiff enough that I can climb out of the saddle while loaded...not something I could do on the steel frame that I had for 20 years previously.

"Aluminum can't be repaired." Neither can steel...at least not well...but I've had aluminum frames repaired. It's not that difficult and while you might have to heat treat the frame for long term use, the repairs work well enough to get you down the road. If the welder has an arc welder or TIG (which many do), they can fix aluminum easily.

My favorite: "I don't like the way that aluminum looks." Personally, I don't care how it looks as long as it works. I appreciate the engineering that goes into building an aluminum frame.

Yawn, this FAQ Again ? Best for what Purpose? what Do You Want the Bike in Question Purposed FOR?

A Venge is 2lbs as is the Tarmac. Those are lightweight frames which would really not support touring. Also the LHT is extremely heavy with a pretty bad design (way too thin tubes with thick walls) I would imagine a touring CF frame would weigh a bit more than 2lbs. Still, the difference as a whole package isn't that great.

Not anywhere of course. But there a significantly more opportunities for fixing a steel frame than a CF frame. I wouldn't weld a broken frame for instance. I'd use some extra steel and braze it. That way there's less risk of burning through, the end result may be more durable than the original, and depending on the steel you'd keep the heat treat if it's air hardnening.

Again, this really depends where you live. In Europe the cheapest bicycles are usually steel, then they go up for aluminum (the horrid thick, heavy stuff), then we get the nice aluminum, then steel again and then carbon fiber. This is of course grossly simplified but it gives a general idea. Also I'd imagine good steel is more expensive to manufacture than aluminum since good steel isn't cheap and it takes some skill to weld/braze it. but it's in no way inferior to steel in terms of ride quality (most people can't really even tell the difference. To be frank, most people can't really tell the difference between steel and carbon. It's all marketing and placebo)

Stress cycles is the term you're looking for. The difference between that something might break and that something will break is a pretty big one. And steel just goes and goes and goes. I've ridden steel frames which were over a hundred years old. Still good to go.

Harshness or stiffness is really not a property of the material, rather than frame desing. Thin steel tubes with thin walls are of course not optimal for touring, but wider tube diameters make better steel tourers. I believe You've noticed how aluminum frames usually have wider tubes? There's your answer for the stiffness thing. If you had a well made steel tourer with wide enough tube diameters you could climb it all you wanted without a singe twist.

Again, steel can be brazed. Aluminum can be welded of course and that's a great thing. Requiring heat treatment afterwards is something I would not want in a frame though...

And I appreciate the engineering that goes into all frames. But looking at the properties of different materials, I still prefer steel. To get good carbon you have to pay way too much while you can get a fantastic steel frame with half the price. Aluminum is nice but stress cycles.

It's only a matter of time before fullerene frames go on the market... but perhaps by then velocipedes will have been rendered obsolete by self-propelled horseless carriages.

If anyone has a pinarello dogma magnesium ak61 or FPX laying around in 59.5 cm and would like to dispose of it, please let me know.

Has anyone who has ridden a magnesium frame dispute that it is THE best material to make a frame?

Hold on. How does your accident prove anything except what happened to your bike? That sort of speculation is without merit.

The best frame material is the one you're riding. End of story. And those that want to disagree are splitting hairs. Haha.

Better? Please show me one that is old( more than 10 years) Better until it falls over and smashes the top tube on a rock, then throw it away. Better for mt biking? We will see.

I have 2 steel frame bikes and 1 aluminum frame bike. When I'm riding the aluminum frame bike, I want to be on the steel frame bike. Therefore, sir, I debate your conclusions!

Plenty of steel bikes available to the masses these days. See raleigh, soma, jamis, surly, riv bikes and many others. Best? What works for you and your budget. Steel works for me, touring road and commuting. Mt biking, aluminum dual sus. and front sus fat bike. Now best pedal and wheel size ?

the only thing I got out of this thread is that my LHT sucks

There are some steel bikes available for the "masses". Jamis, Raleigh and Surly have some and those bikes are ones that I would classify as "for the masses". But Jamis and Raleigh offer aluminum and carbon bicycles as well. Sales of aluminum and carbon out number steel in those brands.

I wouldn't put Soma and Rivendell in the category of "for the masses", especially not Rivendell. Those are higher end boutique bikes

I do agree that what works best for anyone is what they can afford. But, all too often, these discussions devolve (as this one currently is) in to a religious discussions. And all too often, steel lovers fall on the side of the Spanish Inquisition. Just look at Nightshade's signature line. Steel riders tend to be over the top, holier than thou about the fact that they ride steel.

While aluminum and carbon followers can sometimes be a bit pushy, they do tend act more like Unitarians. We're cool with what ever you want to ride. We know our way is better but if you haven't seen the light, that's your business.

Titanium riders, on the other hand, wonder what all the fuss is about.

Where does one buy a 1lb heavy duty carbon fiber touring frame? Sounds like something I'd like.

My Trek Y-foil is a 16 year old CF bike. It's got lots of scratches on it, but nothing structural. It's solid, and it's slightly faster than my steel bikes, especially up and down hills. But it's nowhere near as good looking as my two nicest steel bikes.

There have been so many generalizations in this thread that are simply not true in all cases.

The numbers I'm seeing for the Venge is 2 kg but that is for the frame, fork, seat post and crank. I've seen other carbon frames that are in the 800 g range. For the metrically challenged, that's in the range of the estimate I made based on volume comparisons alone. Simply put, you couldn't put more than about 2 lbs of carbon fiber in the same number and geometry of tubes even if the tubes were solid.

If you designed and used carbon parts for the components, you could easily get a carbon touring bike into the 20 lb range and still have it as a functional touring bike. Like I said, for people who will fuss over the weight of a toothbush handle that is a huge difference.

Surly's LHT is based on the same dimensions as the steel touring bikes that so many want and get all nostalgic for. The outside tube diameter is the same. Using a steel tube with a small cross section is what gives steel frames that flexible ride that people seem to want. If you went to a thicker cross section like those of an aluminum bike, the frame would be so stiff that people would complain about the ride more than they do about aluminum. Aluminum metal isn't "stiff". Steel is.

The problem is that the "myth" says anywhere. Even you mentioned that in regard to a "touring setting".

As for brazing, that doesn't sound all the practical and would require more specialized knowledge and equipment than welding. The questions I have are what kind of metal are you going to add, are you going to have to machine it, and how much preparation work are you going to have to do? It doesn't sound any easier to fix a steel frame by brazing it than fixing a carbon fiber bike. Epoxy and carbon fiber would do well.

Europe isn't some third world country. There are lots of aluminum and carbon bikes in the shops (been there recently). Utility bikes are usually steel but that's because they are dirt cheap and likely to get stolen. The prevailing attitude there when it comes to having your bike stolen is to just steal someone elses. Amsterdam, for example, churns through 100,000 of them a year.

People do make too much about ride quality but there definitely is a weight difference that many people will notice. Lots of people say it makes no difference but give them a choice between a 35 lb bike and a 15 lb bike and most would go for the 15 lb bike.


Some steel goes and goes. Some doesn't. I've broken steel frames and steel parts. I've broken aluminum frames and aluminum parts. Both are in about equal numbers. In terms of track record and my own personal experience, aluminum is more durable than steel. I've broken a steel mountain bike frame 4 times...broken fork at the steer tube, broken chainstays at the brake bridge (twice), and a broken dropout...as well as another mountain bike frame at the rear dropout. I've broken two aluminum frames but one of those was due to my using a seatpost with a huge set back. A steel frame likely would have broken under the same stresses.

A steel tube with a greater cross section would very quickly become too stiff to ride. You are also limited by the material. The walls of a steel tube used now is very thin even in cheap bikes. If you increase the cross sectional diameter, you very quickly have a tube that is too fragile to resist dents. You need to increase the wall thickness to prevent denting whichy means more material and more weight. It's the wrong way to go.


I was talking about emergency repairs. But the "myth" says the aluminum is unrepairable. The myth is wrong.

There are lots of old aluminum bikes. You can still find Monarch Silver Kings which were made in the 30s. There are lots of Cannondale aluminum touring bikes from the 1980s still carrying loads. Yes, aluminum is limited in terms of stress cycles. The number, however, is very large and not likely to be a problem within a person's life time.

If you are really worried about "stress cycles" do you use steel wheels and steel parts? A wheel sees more "stress cycles" than the frame does and, I suspect, that even Nightshade and krazygluon puts those under their butts at 30 mph and doesn't even think about it.

You don't. That's the problem. The niche market of touring won't buy anything but steel. You have a hell of a time finding an aluminum touring bike due to the Cult of Steel.

I have a Kestral that is well over 20 years old but it probably only has 50,000 miles on it although I crashed it in two crits and on a 600K Brevet at 45 mph if that counts.

If you think you could build a heavy duty frame suitable for touring and have it weigh <500 grams, then I think you might be in a cult!

Also want to build an Aluminum touring bike? Be my guest!

Product: Nashbar Double-Butted Aluminum Touring Frame

Very easy to tell the difference. Aluminum tubing is shaped differently from steel tubing and the thickness/diameter of the tubing is different.