I have no doubt that essentially any material could be shaped, if the company chooses to invest in the processing capabilities.

Looking at the Colnago BiTitan, the top tube is squared, much like the Master steel frames. The seat tube is ovalized at the bottom, and the chian stays are tapered and shaped.
Linksys ovalizes the downtube so it is tall and skinny at the top and short and wide at the bottom. They also have shaped and curved chain stays and curved seat stays.

I have heard that Colnago had problems with flex with their BiTitan, and all of the titanium frames are not immune from fatigue problems.

As far as the dropping popularity. The Titanium is somewhat more expensive of a material to work with than Aluminum. Perhaps CF has really taken over the high end bikes. And, important or not, the aluminum can relatively easily be formed to look like CF, perhaps shaving a few grams.

Steel is still common in low end bikes, but even that is quickly disappearing. So, high-end steel, and Titanium have become niche materials. I have no doubt the Litespeed, Lynksey, and a few custom builders will continue to make Titanium frames. Even some Chinese companies. But the mainstream high-end bikes is really moving to Aluminum and Carbon Fiber, with companies like Colnago still doing steel more for classic appeal.

Having read more about what you currently ride, find a Lynskey R240 (or used R230). As for the BB, I have found threaded BB's to be much more reliable, and insanely easy to service vs BB30 etc.

Be on the look out for deals on Ebay or Lynskey's Loft section of their site. For example, Lynskey has factory demo R140's with a 105 build for $1900.

Check out Seven too.

I think the only issue with the threaded BBs is that you're limited to a 24mm BB spindle. But those are widely supported, and will be in the future.

I have pretty tight chainring clearances with my MTB to Road conversion, and can get them to rub when working hard. I'll have to work on the spacing a bit. I'm sure the rubbing is due to flex, but I'm not sure if it is in the frame or BB (square taper). But, I don't think I would notice the flex if it wasn't rubbing.

Not true anymore actually:

Rotor Bike Components :: BSA Bottom Bracket

I did, they are pricey.

This ^. There are lots of complaints about creaking from pressed in bottom brackets because of differences in manufacturing tolerances from the different vendors. The theory behind the newer BB standards is that they weigh less and are stiffer, but until the manufacturers get their tolerances right I'd stick with the tried and true British threaded standard.

FSA makes the excellent BB386 cranks and bottom brackets which fit in a BSA shell (cups threaded in), have the normal 86mm spindle width, and the 30 mm spindle diameter of the BB30 type crank. The oversize spindle does just fit into the shell, but so what? It works great, and the spindle being aluminum, the cranks are very light.

The only limitation here is that the original style short spindle BB30 cranks don't work with it. BB386Evo and BBRight cranks do, and the new SRAM Force BB30 cranks do also. Shorter spindle BB30 cranks are going the way of the dodo I think, especially given that all the new Cannondales have these 73mm BB30 BBs, which won't fit the old style 68mm cranks either.

The only thing the Colnago BiTitan got was lots of laughs. It did flex a lot and weighed much more than good steel. For that you paid big money.

Who are the top makers of steel frame bikes? Or better yet how do you know who's good and who's not?

Of course if you want a frame that's both light and stiff for the best price, Aluminum wins every time over Steel/Ti.

However, most people buy steel or Ti bikes because they prefer a certain look of the frame. Usually they prefer the thin tube look. Cycling is 99.99% about the engine anyway, when comparing between several good products, so aesthetics and fit should always be the #1 priority.

Also, the CAAD10 dents EXTREMELY easily compared to most steel/Ti frames. That's a pretty big negative in my book.

I think Colnago still makes lugged steel frames.
I think Jamis has butted steel tubing in some of their frames.
Lots of smaller builders. Bike Friday.
Well, that is a point, most cargo bikes, and anything significantly deviating from the norm is often in steel.

Many of the Titanium frames use OS tubing. I don't know if you can easily dent Titanium frames.

High end butted steel frames, on the other hand do dent. I don't know how that compares to Cannondale or other brands of aluminum frames.

I agree 100%

Rivendell. :thumb:

He asked about makers not marketers.

:rolleyes:Who designed it? Who puts them together? Who works with the customer on components? Whose name is on it?

Is a Trek 5.2 Domane a Trek or is it really just some name of a manufacturer in Taiwan or China?

Independent Frabrication, Waterford, Guru, Seven, and lots of small builders all across the country. Rodriquez for example makes a super light steel frame that rivals CF.

OK, so in your books, the only things that someone looks for in a frame are lightness, stiffness and looks? You're kind of missing a whole huge reason why a lot of people like steel framed bikes. Hint: It's the ride quality.

Of course you are right in a hypothetical sense. People do think that steel will feel better. There was a time when steel was the best feeling material. Advances in frame design have radically changed all that, however. My Ti and CF bikes both feel hugely better on the road than my 531 steel frame. Just an anecdote to be sure, but it is one point to consider. And steel has advanced too. I just don't know that the material per se can be identified with attractive road feel. link0 probably has identified the differences that reliably matter.

I don't really care to debate the merits of frame material. I'm just pointing out that people don't just choose to ride steel or Ti because of the looks. Whether they are deluded about the ride quality of Steel/Ti versus anything else is irrelevant to the point I was making.

You brought up the intangible 'ride quality', but you don't wish to debate it?

FWIW, I believe that, in general, there would be a fairly noticeable difference between a superlight steel frame (like an old road race frame) and the standard aluminum or carbon frame, but the people buying 6 or 7 lb Surly and Soma frames and claiming a mystical experience are most definitely experiencing confirmation bias.

link0 posted "most people buy steel or Ti bikes because they prefer a certain look of the frame". I'm debating that assumption only. Is it that hard to grasp?

And no, I don't really want to get into a cyclical argument about steel vs aluminum vs Ti vs carbon fibre, because we can argue all day about that and in the end nobody will come away with any opinions changed. WTF is the point of that?

In a famous Bicycle Guide magazine comparison in which a frame builder (Mondonico, if I remember correctly) constructed a series of high-end-steel frames that were identical in every way except for the tubesets used, the riders who tested the bikes built with those frames preferred the bike built with the heaviest-gauge (Columbus SP) tubing---i.e., the stiffest of the frames tested.

The article noted that the results of the test ran counter to the expectations of all involved, since it's almost universally assumed that lighter tubing equals more compliant frame equals more comfort equals superior ride.

It's heartening to see that a good proportion of the posters in this thread have moved beyond the assumption that the ride of steel and ti bikes is inherently superior to that of carbon and aluminum bikes. Speaking as one who has done lots of miles on pro-level steel bikes since the mid-'60s and on aluminum bikes since the mid-'00s, if I had to choose, I'd take my aluminum bikes over my steel bikes every time.