PlanoFuji

For the only reason that anyone should ride a bike; they enjoy it!

the sci guy 

Are you sure is not because steel bikes magically stand up on their own like yours?

PlanoFuji

You made me check the photograph to see what you were talking about. Because I know it is there I can make out the kickstand. But I wish I could get every bike to stand on its own!

cehowardGS

I ride the old steel, because old steel is the chit!!

The one I used for commute today..

The one I was on yesterday..


Last week, I was on my Ironmans..






2 weeks before that, I commute the whole week on my Competition too...




Words can't protray the pleasure of steel, I had to put some pictures in. BTW, the ride on each one of them, is like Bike-Heaven..

RaleighSport

ahahaha that was like where's Waldo, fun stuff.
Wow... I think I've seen most of those before but that collection is mind blowing to say the least!

cehowardGS

Thanks much..

On the cheap too. In the first pic, the red Raleigh Grand Prix, was a $50 find on Ebay. Nobody wanted it, and I happened to be searching just for it. .Can't get any better than that.. The Expert Ironman, $90 on CL.

In other words, IMO, with steel, you are getting way more than your money's worth..

RaleighSport

Ha, my collection was on the cheap as well.. on the most part not as pretty as yours though.

That was an 87 Tempo frameset purchases from the one and only thrifty Bill..(I need to get a new pic, it's a full 105 bike again with an ultegra crankset)
$50 F/F deal. I forget what after shipping...


The 88 Premis, this was 80 bucks or so locally.. and for my bike economy that's a screaming deal.

Terrible out of date pic of my 83 Turbo, it's now decked out in full Ultegra/600
Was going to be purchased as F/F from the illustrious RobbieTunes ended up becoming a gift of sorts instead.. love this bike.

I almost left out the Sekai 2700... 10 bucks if I remember right at the local dump.
Couldn't agree with your last line more.

cehowardGS

Sweet group, and I already know how sweet they ride!!

Also there is a thrill in the acquisition of steel bikes too. The hunt, making the bargain, and the final change hands.. Nothing like it.. Yeah, I know, I am sentimental..

rydabent

All of my 3 sons have a mid 80s steel lugged frame bike. With the down tube shifters they are some of the cleanest looking bikes out there. I rode with my oldest son within the last month, and it was amazing to see the small tubes and the almost jewelry looking drop outs. With proper care they will last a lifetime.

I too am on the side of the fact I dont think that todays CF wonders will last. They are too delicate and prone to being damaged.

cehowardGS

To really let people know the JOY and PLEASURE of OLD STEEL, take a look at this thread.. Enjoy.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-Ergos/page120

squeakyschwinn

I ride my old steel bike because I'm a recent college grad and I've got a wedding to pay for

That being said, I've come to like my old steel Schwinn. There's some pride in it once you've gotten the tank moving at a good speed. Plus, its durable enough to throw in the back of a Mazda 3.

Lanovran

I ride my steel bikes primarily because my steel bikes are all that I have to ride. ;P As for my "old steel road bike," it was a good Craigslist find, and didn't cost much to rebuild and upgrade, so it ended up being my first (and so far only) road bike, if I don't count my touring bike. In any case, I definitely enjoy riding it, so no problems there.

EvilV

The heaviest thing about my bike is me. The idea of paying out a couple of thousand to get rid of about four pounds in all up weight is much less appealing than losing four pounds by going without food for two days.

WestPablo

A steel bicycle can last for decades. There are certain types of steel road bikes that are light enough to race (like Reynolds 853). I wouldn't trust riding a century on a twenty year old aluminum bicycle.

mr. peugeot

Well said.

Bridger M

Nice, modern road bikes are significantly faster and stiffer. That is a fact. however, old steel road bikes are very durable, cool, and good for commuting. They are still fast bikes, but they are definitely less good for racing than a carbon bike.

D1andonlyDman

No, older steel bikes can be plenty stiff, but they typically weigh 2-3 pounds more than CF at the frame.

desconhecido 

So, a "light" weight steel frame is probably 4# or so. Are CF frames really 1# to 2#? I'm asking because I just don't know. That's really light.

D1andonlyDman

Including the fork, typical CF frames are 2.5-3 pounds. Typical Steel is 5-6 pounds. Lightest Steel might be 4.5#, lightest CF somewhere just above 2#

chaadster

Lightest carbon is sub 2#, and common from most manufacturers. To be clear, we're talking frame only, not frameset, which includes fork.

Blue Belly

what do you can heavy? I ride lightweight steel racing bikes. Anything but heavy.
a good steel frame just has a feel that can't be replicated. Some may not prefer it. But, I'm riding it & I enjoy it more than any high end aluminum, Ti or carbon fiber frames I have ridden.

rydabent

Put me down on the side that says the new plastic bikes are not the greatest thing as sliced bread. IMO they are far over priced and too delicate. Steel will last decades, while one careless ding will ruin a plastic bike.

chaadster

I don't think so. I've not had the cream of the crop in vintage steel, but I've had nice ones from Schwinn, Bridgestone, Lotus, and Lemond, and they can't hold a candle to modern steel (let alone carbon) for stiffness or precision.

Oversized tubing, shaping, carbon fork tech, handlebar and stem design, and compact geometry all play a part in distinguishing the handling of truly modern steel as superior to vintage.

To be sure, there a plenty of contemporary steel frames that are nothing more than throwback machines, and so those are excluded by my standards.

gregf83 

Not in my experience. My Colnago steel bike lasted about 9 yrs before breaking. The bottom bracket cracked and it wasn't worth repairing. I replaced the steel frame with a used Tarmac SL2 which has been problem free, including being shipped around the world in a bike bag. Either way, I'm not worried about it as I consider the frame to be a consumable item and don't mind replacing it once in a while. I just see the carbon frame as being superior in every meaningful way and can't see going back to steel other than for a collector bike.

D1andonlyDman

You're correct about one thing, and that is that you've not ridden the cream of the crop of vintage steel frames, unless the Schwinn you are referring to is a Paramount. My two best steel frames (A Tommasini Super Prestige built with Columbus SLX, and a Schwinn Paramount Series 7 built with Tange Prestige OS) are as stiff as my Trek Y-Foil, which is a VERY laterally stiff CF frame (as it is nowhere near the lightest CF frame). They are heavier than CF, though, and they are also slightly heavier than modern steel. But other than on significant climbs, they are just as fast. The added weight hurts them for climbing, but not anywhere near else. Lateral stiffness of these frames is very comparable to the best of today's bikes, only the weight is not. But 2-3 pounds of weight really doesn't matter but for climbing.

My next best steel frame, a classic Trek 510, built with Ishiwata 022, is much more comparable to the ones you've ridden, and it's a noticeable drop off from the other two I mentioned above - mostly not because of material, but rather, because of more relaxed geometry.

Based upon your obviously limited experience with really top-tier vintage steel bikes, you're talking out of your butt in dismissing them. I can tell you that I personally ride exactly as fast on my best steel bikes as I do on top tier carbon bikes, for anything other than climbs - assuming the same wheel sets - and BTW, the difference between modern wheels and older wheels DWARFS the difference in frame materials so that may well be more of what you experienced and incorrectly attributed to frame deficiencies with those older steel frames. On flats and descents, my times are identical on my two best steel bikes as they are on any carbon bike I've ridden (again, assuming the same caliber of wheels). On climbs, the CF takes the lead, and my times are better by maybe 5%, even 10% on steep long climbs. My Paramount has 130mm rear spacing, so I've done the wheel comparisons with modern CF frames. The wheels make more difference than the frames do, for anything other than climbing. And as those older steel bikes you referred to almost certainly did not have the same caliber of wheels that new CF bikes do, I am very willing to bet that the lesser performance you experienced with the older steel bikes you cited is much more attributable to the wheels than to the frames.

There are any number of objective tests that are out there between older steel frames and newer ones, with identically configured bikes.

Here's a good example:

Tubing Article ? Nothing is better than a bike that fits

Don't get me wrong - if I raced, I'd use CF almost exclusively - because of the weight issue, and what it means for climbing performance. I would also use lighter, less durable wheels than I do. But I don't race, I'm a serious recreational rider, who raced 30 years ago, but not since then. Comfort and durability and the degree of care that the bike requires matter more than absolute speed for me personally in my riding nowadays. And steel is basically a care-free frame material, other than for riding in the rain.