Banzai

Did you just say "your small tube..um theory"?

If the formulae for the torsion constant of a thin walled tube, and the bending stiffness of a thin walled tube, were my invention, or a pure flight of fancy, I would be a successful engineer indeed. Instead, I'm merely a scientifically literate person, unlike you, "jamesdak".

Math: even small changes in diameter make big differences, since everything multiplies on the cube of the radius. And tires make bigger differences than tubes even. But don't let any of that get in your way.

StephenH

The bikes that I liked, with the price and the features that I liked, just happened to be steel. That includes a Worksman cruiser, a Raleigh Sojourn, a CoMotion Primera tandem and a Bike Friday Pocket Rocket. Also note that all but the Raleigh are made in fairly small quantities, and it's easier to do that with steel. There was basically zero thought that went into selecting the frame materials, and if they sold those same bikes made out of something else, that would have been okay, too. I'm currently looking at a Specialized Roubaix as an upgrade, though. Oh yes, I might mention that the Sojourn is now over 50,000 miles and the tandem is over 25,000 miles.

merlinextraligh

OP wants a second bike to travel with. IMHO, a Ti frame with S&S couplers is ideal for this. Couplers allow you to travel by air checking the bike in a a standard suitcase.

And Ti because you can pack the bike with no worry of scratching the frame.

And the bike will still look new 20 years later

Inpd

@jamesdak I think its great to see someone so passionate about something, but the color schemes!

Are those green tires on a red frame on the first bike?

The middle bike would be one Oscar the grouch would ride! It matches his color https://twitter.com/oscarthegrouch

garciawork

I prefer steel on my MTB's, and Ti on road, however I don't mind either however. I have a steel gravel and roadie right now, and they both ride wonderfully, however my Lynskey R230 was the best riding road bike I have ridden (compared to a Tarmac Elite and Tarmac SL3).

On mtb, I have ridden both, and prefer the feel of the steel MTB's I have (Niner SIR currently) to the Ti Lynskey's, a Seven a friend has, multiple Niner EMD's, and a couple carbon bikes. It just feels the best, and I am a little less nervous about trail damage, although anything can break...

Dave Cutter

I have yet to jump-in on the bigger tire trend. My bikes are somewhat limited on the tire sizes they can accept. However I have found 25mm more comfy than the 23. And... if you want a little more cushiness you can add the thicker thorn-proof tubes. They really do seem to add more luxury to my ride.

But feel is so subjective! How does anyone test ride quality? I accidently stumbled on a rough way of getting an idea of a bicycles ride quality.

I had purchased a remarkable looking quality Japanize made mid 80's steel bicycle. Thinking this might be a Grant Peterson style riding experience I used toe cages instead of clipless pedals and even added a bicycle bell. I quickly noticed the bell rang constantly. Every crack in the pavement or bump in the road made the bell ding.

I hadn't remembered this bell as having this defect previously. So I tried the bell out on other bikes and found the ring/ding wasn't the fault of the bell. This particular bike.... was a real bell ringer. So now... I have a "bell test" for a bicycles ride quality.

So.... do I prefer steel bicycles? Well to be honest.... I prefer either a red or yellow bicycle.

dim

it's not about the frame material ...

all bikes ride well if you use the correct tyres and the correct tyre pressures.

2lo8

What is the correct tyre and tyre pressure for an ordinary bicycle?

Dave Cutter

Bicycles are part engineering and part artistry. The correct quality and combination of both... isn't science. Maybe the formula to build a special bike is more luck... than anything else.

But it isn't likely you will find that combination in any other material than the one material that bicycle artist use most often. Steel.

jamesdak 

Lol, you missed the yellow wheels on the red bike. The green striped tires actually match the world champion stripes on the bike, classic open paves bought to test their ride quality. The second bike is my rain and main winter ride. The brighter the better to get noticed and stay alive, right? The last one is just beautiful,yet so out of place in today's dull market of black and matte grey. Oh, and those goofy yellow wheels were stripped. Who does that to open pro rims?

jamesdak 

Lol, I dont, no worries. I'll just continue to mindlessly ramble on about why something works for me as real life examples. It's all tongue in cheek, you know. But maybe I am illiterate because I don't know what " formulae" means.

kbarch

Steel, because it looks, feels and even sounds right.
Fundamentally, the frame only needs to hold everything in place. Draw some lines between the points, and done. While I CAN appreciate the advantages that an aero shaped frame may provide if I try really hard, that's an "extra" I generally don't need or actually appreciate while riding. Frankly, I got an aero frame race bike for visual aesthetic reasons as much as anything - if I'm going to have a race bike, I'd rather it look like one than not.

Lighter is better, sure, but a regular framed steel bike at least looks light (especially with fillet brazed connections), and often enough, IS reasonably light, and if it's light enough, that's good enough for me. When it comes to CF, however, some of the lightest bikes look heavier than some of the heavier ones (the Ridley Helium SL is an exception to this - one of the reasons I like it so much).

But "right for what?" one might ask. Well, right as a long-term investment - a "keeper" - and right for long days in the saddle. I won't claim that the steel frame necessarily makes it more comfortable than ANY CF bike, but it has a distinct advantage in that department over the CF- and AL-framed bikes I have ridden. Not a huge advantage - it's still a bike, not a magic carpet - but distinct. For sporty rides, it is more than sufficiently stiff, but it has a resilience that's unmatched by CF or AL. Some will surely say this is hogwash, but it's as if its response to the road is harmonious, where the response of CF and AL is dissonant. Even if that's all "in my head," that's as it should be. I would not be happy if that harmoniousness was merely a fact observed by scientists, which I was unable to appreciate.

Also steel because, as the OP indicated, for made-to-order bikes, it's sort of the default. Not that people don't build custom CF frames or individually select all the components for an aluminum frame bike, but the simplicity of steel lends itself to customization more.

on the path

I have steel and I have aluminum. The ride is very similar. The CAAD is a bit easier on steep climbs, the steel looks much cooler. Those are the significant differences, IMO. Yes, MY opinion.

For a better ride, try 25s over 23s, and/or let a little bit 'o air out of the tyres. That's not news, but it doesn't seem to be considered widely.

redfooj

1. how much power are you putting out that stiffness becomes an issue
2. how much actual force are you applying to the pedals to produce that power

StanSeven

Having bikes made of each material, the ride and feel from each is a little different. It's more a personal preference thing you want out of a ride. With me, I end up on my CF almost all the time.

The one thing not mentioned so far is CF can be made to focus on specific characteristics the other materials can't. You can have stiffness, lightweight, aeroness and comfort just by varying the material and the way it's used. You can't do that with other materials except in limited circumstances like varying tube thickness or forming the shape with aluminum a little.

That said, there's nothing better than steel with wide tires for an easy recovery ride or neighborhood cruise.

joejack951

You do still need to consider the ID of the tube, which for some of the modern steels isn't much less than the OD. Older stuff could go either way so it's hard to judge just by looking at a frame.

tarwheel 

I've currently got 6 bikes and they are all steel. I've previously owned a titanium bike and an aluminum bike with carbon fork but sold them because I like my steel bikes better. I like the way steel bikes look and ride. I grew up riding steel bikes, and prefer the look of narrower tubing and painted frames.

I don't claim to have much knowledge or experience riding aluminum and carbon bikes. The aluminum/carbon bike that I owned was a Bianchi Alloro and was very "buzzy" on rough pavement, and I decided to sell it after a long ride in the mountains on not-so-smooth pavement. My titanium bike was an Eddy Merckx AX and a pleasure to ride, similar to my steel frames, but quite frankly my steel Waterford and De Bernardi were nicer riding.

I have only ridden a carbon bike briefly so I can't make an honest assessment about them. However, purely from an aesthetic standpoint I find most carbon bikes relatively ugly compared to steel bikes. Most carbon bikes have the same boring black/white/red color schemes and fat, swoopy tubing that is unappealing to me. They generally are much more expensive than steel. If somebody gave me a carbon bike, I would probably ride and it might come to like it, but I'm not willing to spend my hard-earned cash on one.

I am 62 years old have been cycling for more than 40 years. Most of my riding these days is commuting, touring and riding on greenways. I could care less about going fast and how much my bikes weigh. The most important factors about a bike to me are the fit, comfort while riding, handling, and fittings for fenders, larger tires and racks. I used to participate in a lot of fast group rides and enjoyed that when I was younger, but I've moved on. I'm riding more than ever and enjoying just as much, but cycling for me is a journey rather than a competition.

Hiro11

To repeat myself, I believe "ride" and "feel" are dependent on many factors, frame material being one of the least important factors. The majority of a bike's "compliance feel" or "comfort" comes from the tires. Steel frames can be ridiculously stiff and harsh. Aluminum frames can be ridiculously whippy and "smooth". All frame materials can result in a "balanced" feeling frame. Handling traits are almost entirely a result of geometry. Frame weight matters little within certain bounds. Etc.

For these reasons, to me resilience, toughness, assembly/maintenance difficulty and aesthetics are far bigger considerations when picking a frame material.

Jarrett2

I'm glad we made things clear

That's sig worthy right there

Jarrett2

I think the bottom line as with anything bike related is ride what you like.

Some people get on steel and think, "Wow, what have I been missing?"

And others apparently take a ride on steel and can feel no difference. Or maybe what they feel isn't a selling point for them.

You just have to try it and see which one you are.

Bandera

I'll defer to your extensive experience putting the Big Watts down on the MUP and regretting the "lack of stiffness" of a steel frame.

"Advantage" on chip seal ?

Not in my decades of experience riding the infamous TX chip-seal at pace.
For the longest, steepest and roughest routes I choose to ride my CF Merckx.
Oddly enough the EMX-3 is well designed for my size/weight/style and (lousy) road conditions.
It's as if they had decades of experience building bikes intended for riding rough surfaces with brio using current technology.

-Bandera

redfooj

should everyone sell their carbon mountain bikes ?


should I stop riding up and down curbs, across speed bumps and pot holes with my road bike?

CrankyNeck

Why steel? Why aluminum? Why carbon? Because they all ride a bit different and different people like different things. Just because one person prefers steel/aluminum/carbon, doesn't mean you will. Try to ride them all and then you decide. Don't let someone else tell you what you prefer. And if you happen to like steel, don't let the "carbon is all that" folks bother you. It's your bike, not theirs.

Jarrett2

No, they are engineered to be tougher than carbon road bikes.

If it is a super light carbon road frame, probably so.

From Specialized:
HIGH-PERFORMANCE ROAD
• CONDITION 1: Bikes designed for riding on a paved surface where the tires do not lose ground contact.
• INTENDED: To be ridden on paved roads only.
• NOT INTENDED: For off-road, cyclocross, or touring with racks or panniers.
• TRADE OFF: Material use is optimized to deliver both light weight and specific performance.

You must understand that:
(1) these types of bikes are intended to give an aggressive racer or competitive cyclist a performance advantage over a relatively short product life,
(2) a less aggressive rider will enjoy longer frame life,
(3) you are choosing light weight (shorter frame life) over more frame weight and a longer frame life,
(4) you are choosing light weight over more dent resistant or rugged frames that weigh more.
All frames that are very light need frequent inspection. These frames are likely to be damaged or broken in a crash.
They are not designed to take abuse or be a rugged workhorse

Trakhak

Thanks for posting that information; hadn't seen it before.

Note that all of the points about lightweight frames apply not just to carbon but also to steel, titanium, and aluminum. For example, the maximum rider weight recommended by Columbus for an SL frame was 180 lb. (Desperado Cycles used to have a web page listing maximum recommended rider weights for steel tube sets, but their website seems to have disappeared. If anyone else has the list available, please provide a link.)