Apparently you do. Now what are we to make of that? I'm with those that mention that the prolific use of generalizations, deserved and otherwise, hasn't added much to the discussion.

I just love the "what I like is the only right way " mentality :bang: Just because you are worried about every once doesn't mean I am. I and many others here know the pros and cons of carbon fiber . you don't need to beat the drum that hard. First time I have seen the term retro grouch , but it fits me fine Maybe I can get it on a hat :D I have never seen a carbon bike I like the looks of so I probably wouldn't ride one it it was given to me . If you love carbon I am fine with that. I like old school all your arguing won't change my mind. My friends in archery have been preaching carbon fiber arrows for years, I still shoot ceder
Roy
By the way any one wanting to give a high end carbon bike I would try it ,but would most likely sell it and put the cash towards a Rivendell :roflmao2:

There is a bright side to these carbon loving/carbon bashing threads.

They're not chain lube threads.

Got to look for the bright side :thumb: I am happy for people to have what they like. Even if it isn't my cup of tea
Roy

Yup :lol:

So are custom frames of any material inherently worse for the environment? Hand built generally means lower productivity hence the sky high prices. I doubt the article accounts for the carbon cost associated with the labor component of a frame.

Things are different now than when I was young, and I don't like it one bit. Waaaaaahhhhhh!

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/243228/

Most of the mass you are moving is well, .....its you. Your body. People stress over the weight of the seat post, the bars, the this and that. I am sure carbon bikes are great. But I see them as part of our disposable, consumer culture. I have several steel bikes. One is 40 years old. How many carbon bikes will last that long?

Since there was so much discussion about steel vs. other material touring frames, I'll just say I have a 2000 Cannondale T2000 touring bike. Yes it is very stiff, and therefore very efficient. Carrying heavy loads up hill, you push down on the pedals and the bike moves forward rather than having the bottom bracket move sideways. I like that stiffness. Harsh ride? Well yes, sort of, but the thing has an incredibly long wheelbase. Combine that with the 700x38 70 lbs pressure tires and it really rides rather well. I have no interest in exchanging it for a steel touring frame, even though I am sure there are some nice ones available. As for as weight, I don't know what the frame weighs, but so what. With those huge tires, fenders, racks front and rear, etc. the bike weighs "a ton" already, even before I hang the panniers on it. Anyway, in touring I'm out for the ride, not the speed. I have other bikes for that.

Best frame material? Well, this isn't the best, but it is a clear winner and probably second or third best. CF.

Wind like never before in Belgium's Gent-Wevelgem classic - VeloNews.com

Proof. If these were metal bikes, they'd be gone! Now bike materials #1 and #2 ? Bamboo and wood. You can talk forever about weight, stiffness, vibration damping, etc. but this is far more important. If it floats you have a bike. If it sinks, oh well.

Ben

Den

I've never understood minimal tourists or minimal hikers. I need some comforts dang it! I've done enough asceticism in the military to last a lifetime. But yeah, there are of course people who tour on carbon road bikes and use frame bags (which the bike can support quite well since the bags aren't causing point loads)

What people drool over not good desing make. Also, a tourer isn't supposed to be flexible. It's supposed to be stiff so it gives precise steering even when the bags are trying to twist it in any which way. In my book a good tourer is a nice ride when loaded, but not necessarily when it's not. Same thing with touring tires. Schwalbe marathon plus is the worst kind of tire on the planet for any kind of riding anywhere if you ride it unloaded. But when you have your bike heavy, it suddenly becomes a surprisingly nice tire. Almost race tire comfort.



Fixing carbon fiber is easy in theory but in reality it requires a lot of quite specialized tools (a vacuum pump being one), the correct materials and know how. Carbon fiber also isn't that easy to source for the common man since the stuff required for bicycles is quite different from the stuff used in for example, car hoods or other aesthetic parts. Where I live we only have one person repairing carbon nation wide, and he has a queue of a few months. This means that if the carbon tourer breaks, it's easier to just get a new frame and transfer the parts.

Whereas I know a lot of hobbyist frame builders (as well as pros) who could braze/weld a frame up with correct tubing (be it chromoly or reynolds or whatever). Also knowing how to do it yourself helps. Depending where the frame has broken I'd probably try to braze the breakage point shut and then slap on 2 halves of steel tubing as additional bracing. It won't be pretty, but it should work.

If someone is into that kind of thing, sure. Where I'm at, I really don't care about weight that much. Of course my fun bikes need to be under 10kg just to make it sensible, but that's not that hard to get to even with bombproof wheels and a sturdy frame. With a tourer I could easily go to 12kg. But bottom line is that if one is thinking about speed (I guess the whole weight thing is about speed in the end), then aerodynamics is what dictate your speed, not the weight difference of a few pounds or even kilogram in the bike. Not even the wheels weights matter really.

Quote:

---

Some

---

Hence, my bikes are going to be reynolds rather than chromoly. You shouldn't heat chromoly after the initial heat treat

Dent resistance is largely affected by the actual steel. Better steel allows for thinner tubes with the same dent resistance as lower level steel with thicker walls. Also, one does not need to go overboard with the tube cross sections to get a desired effect. Reynolds goes to 37.3mm at the greates cross sections and I admit that is a bit much. But for a tourer/loaded use bike, 34.9 could work just fine.
So really what one needs to do is increase the tube diameter, either keep the wall thickness or use a little thinner walls and use better steel. Reynolds 853 really isn't that expensive and it's air hardening as well so it'll do well brazed or welded.


Ah well, with emergence repairs you're buggered in any way you look at it. Bikes in general are just too delicate to be fixed in a sweatshop in a middle of nowhere. But if you can get a bus to a major city and get a fix there it'll be much easier than getting a new frame in the mail.




As far as I'm concerned wheels are still a component that gets replaced fairly often (the rim at least, man I want discs in all my bikes...) so there won't be chance for them to stress out (see what I did there :D ). Also the stress depends on the actual stress put on the bike. I'm a big dude and I'm not likely to get much smaller so I really do need a frame that can take the abuse. I know I could probably get away with aluminum (it is cheaper that's for sure) but it's also a psychological thing. As is buying carbon for other people.

It's all about design. Mountain bike frames are heavy duty and they don't have to weigh much more then 500 g. I'm just saying that it's in the realm of the possible. It won't happen, of course, because touring cyclists are wedded to steel in a way that would make the Pope smile.

You need to update your link. The only touring bike I can find on Nashbar's website that is currently available is a steel frame. There are a few aluminum touring bikes still out there like the Thorn and Trek's expedition series touring bikes but they are few. Even when Cannondale was producing touring bikes, I doubt they made more than a few thousand units per year.

Well you certainly seem to be well at home in the "what I like is the only right way " world. In the interests of full disclosure, I don't own a carbon bike. I probably never will. I own a couple of bikes with carbon forks, a carbon seatpost or two and my wife's bike (she's much lighter than I am) has come carbon forks. But at least I'm willing to try new equipment and materials.

I'm not convinced that it's possible. Ultra-light road frames are in the 700g range (the lightest production road bike, a Trek Emoda SLR 10 has a 690gram frame), and those are not built to carry large amounts of weight. I think this comes down to a material science issue rather than a cultism issue, honestly. Steel is used for touring bikes because it's a good material for building touring bikes out of, and maybe also because touring bikes tend to be niche and boutique bikes, and those companies often prefer building with steel. I honestly don't think Aluminum would be a bad material to use for a touring bike, but I don't see what the advantage would be either.

Yeah good point, I hadn't noticed that they were sold out of those frames.

BTW if you really want a carbon touring frame, some people have recommended this:

Pedal Force super-light carbon bicycle

It's officially a CX frame, but it has eyelets for mounting fenders and a rear rack, which should make it good for light touring at least. Weighs 2.5 lbs (although that probably includes the fork weight too).

I just read up on CF bikes.

they are made out of dried up glue...yucky

We probably agree on more than you might think. But even nonminimal bicycle tourists worry about extra weight. There is a limit to how much we want to carry around. I could (and have) use a 6 lb tent. I have one that weighs just a bit over a pound now. I'm going to keep the lightweight one. I've used 5 lb sleeping bags and now have one that weighs in at just over a pound. That's, roughly, a 10 lb savings in equipment right there. I still have creature comforts but I don't have to drag as much weight over mountains.

But why should I stop at saving weight on just my equipment. If I can get a bicycle that performs the task well and sheds 5 lbs or more over a steel bicycle, why would I want the steel? Because the steel can be repaired? (It really can't) Because the steel is "traditional"? I'm not Tevye.

Again, we agree on more than you think. The Cannondale touring bike I own does exactly what you want. It gives a stiffer when unloaded but once loaded is smooth and still stiff enough for precise steering. My old steel bike that it replace is a traditional steel bike that rides just like every steel touring bike I've looked at...it was the antithesis of "stiff" which is the ride that everyone seems to want tin a touring bike.

Again, steel is a very stiff material...about 3 times the stiffness of aluminum...but steel touring bikes are noodly in my opinion. And they are flexible because they are built with small diameter cross section tubing. There is another problem with asking for larger diameter cross sectional tubing for steel bicycles. Someone has to make it. They don't currently because, just like a carbon fiber touring bike, there is no market for it.

For an on the road repair, you don't need a vacuum pump. Some of the guys I work with at my local co-op took a class on building bamboo bikes and they didn't use a vacuum pump on the joints they were making. I envision repairing carbon fiber to be similar to kind of application. Wrap the break, slather on epoxy and ride down the road. The frame would be toast but, then, any frame that needs repair in the field is going to be toast.

Transfering the parts to another frame is likely to be the answer to any frame breakage for the long term anyway.

People say that weight doesn't matter all the time but they really don't mean it. Since you are the power plant of a bicycle, you have to push the weight up any hill that you come across. I may not subscribe to the ultralight monasticism but I can see their point. If you are doing a trip that involves 86,000 feet of climbing, hauling an extra 7 or 8 lbs of metal up those hills starts to matter. Why not just carry that 6 lb tent and 6 lb sleeping bag if it doesn't matter?

You talk as if Reynolds tubing isn't a chromium/molybdenum/iron alloy. Some of their tubing isn't but some of it is. You can't just say "Reynolds" without specifying which tubing.

The physical characteristics of steels doesn't change that much between different alloys. Even if they did, you would have to specify which tubing you are going to be using. Production bikes are going to use whatever is cheapest. You might be able to get a touring bike made of a high cost alloy but that's going to be a custom bike with a higher price tag. Most bicycle tourist can make snot shot out of Lincoln's nose and aren't going to spring for the custom price tag. If, and that is a big "if", touring bike makers were use larger diameter tubing, they are going to use the cheap stuff.

But larger diameter tubing in steel touring bikes is about as likely carbon or aluminum touring bikes. It just isn't going to happen because there's no market for it. The Cult of Steel wouldn't buy them. They don't buy new stuff much now.

Again, we agree but the "supposed" repairabilty of steel...i.e. the "Myth"...is the reason that people as so wedded to steel for touring bikes


I'm not small myself. I mountain bike on aluminum and have for many years. I just don't see aluminum as being delicate, mainly because I've seen it in action. Jumping a 200+ load puts much more stress on a frame than just carrying around that load and a bit of cargo. Aluminum is a whole lot tougher than many people give it credit for. Carbon probably is too.

I think the main problem is that you believe that you can shed 5 lbs by moving from a steel frame to a different material. I think this is a fallacy. Steel touring frames weigh around 5-6 lbs (e.g. Surly LHT about 5.2 lbs). I don't know if anyone has ever attempted to make a true CF touring frame, but I gave an example of one that is at least capable of light touring, and it weighs 2.5 lbs. Aluminum touring frames again will not save you 5 lbs over a steel touring frame.

Grist's audience is mostly urban dwellers who care about the environment. For your average townie rider, steel works well. Long lasting and flexible.

The other "townie" brands that target people who read grist: Public, Linus, Brooklyn, Bobbin and other city bike makers tend to use steel as well.

Regarding touring bikes and frame materials: if you are going to tour in the third world, a traditional small tubed, thick walled steel frame means that you have access to the skills, tools and materials to repair it almost everywhere on this planet. There is no machine ever invented that is as ubiquitous as the bicycle. The technology to repair them has been around for 100+ years. No, the repair won't be pretty, we would consider the frame "ruined," but the odds are good that the repair will get you to the next city with more resources.

You don't have to believe me. Read the accounts of those who have ridden continents (besides North America and Europe) or around the world. Locals have been steering bike tourers to the blacksmith who knows bicycles forever. And that blacksmith will have the skills and materials to make a steel bike work. And this in villages far from the nearest phone or internet connection. A common language is not required.

Ben

Wasn't "3rd world" But in Ireland that my Touring Bike's experimental frame design needed a bit of Welding ,

I found a shop making Stainless Steel Duct work, For Commercial Buildings, in Killarney to do the work .




By the way , I Have visited Belgium and Been through Ypres Ridden the Kemmelberg, and Wevelgem-Kortijk and Ghent.

the actual distance between Kortrijk and Ghent is not that far , ( Navigational canal path covers Most of the distance )

the Spring race goes to the sea coast first then comes back and loops over the steep Cobble stone paved hill at Kimmel twice.

O.K. ******************************??? I'm not the one making all arguments about why steel is the only sensible choice. Carbon fiber bikes are the right choice for many people. If ultralight weight and speed is what you like carbon is the way to go. I am sure aluminum is the right choice for many. For me I like steel bikes Shucks I even have a carbon fiber seatpost on a bike. It came with the bike. cost also puts carbon fiber bikes out of some's reach
Roy

No, the main problem is that you think I said something about shedding 5 lbs from a touring frame by going to a different material. I said you could shed a lot of weight by going to a different material. My aluminum touring bike weighs around 27 lbs with racks, water bottle cages, Brooks saddle and pump. I haven't see too many Surly LHTs that weigh less than 30 lbs in a similar build. Many weigh much more than that...some even pushing 40 lbs. The weight I save comes from somewhere and the frame is a portion of that.

I agree that steel frames weigh around 5 to 6 lbs. Based on density alone and assuming a similar volume of material, a carbon fiber frame using similar dimension would weigh 1/5 of the weight of a steel frame. Even if you had to beef up the frame and use more material, carbon fiber would still weigh less. A 2.5 lb frame for touring is still less than half the weight of a steel frame. Not as low as I estimated earlier but still significant. Using carbon fiber components would save even more weight.

And there it is yet again. First, how often are you planning on traveling by bicycle to the third world? Most people aren't going to be going anywhere near the third world very often, so why buy a bike that could be taken there. There is also a problem with the "thick walled steel frame". Even a Surly LHT doesn't have a "thick walled steel frame". Old Schwinn Varsity bikes are thick walled steel frames. Anything made for touring since the 1980s uses thinner walls that can't really be repaired by "the village smithy". When faced with a modern bicycle frame, the village smithy is much more likely to burn holes in the frame and make the problem worse than to repair it. That's going to happen even in the First World if the welder doesn't have experience welding thin steel.

Right, but as a percentage of the total weight of the bike, not that much. But I agree, if you're aggressively attacking the weight of a bike then CF frame is a big way to do it. However, you have to ask yourself, is that kind of thing a good idea for a touring bike, and is CF even an appropriate material for a touring bike? Apart from your argument about weight, I have seen little evidence that it is.
Sure, you can put light components on a steel frame bike and reduce the weight also. My steel road bike weighs less than this CF Specialized for example:

Specialized Roubaix SL4 Sora review - BikeRadar USA

EDIT: That's the first bike that came up on google for me FYI. I realize that picking and choosing it's easy to do this sort of comparison in your favor. ;)