Agree. My oldest bike (steel Waterford) is 12 years old. I've done numerous upgrades and the only thing original is the frame. It weighs 19 pounds and still rides very well. But I brought three other bikes since then and ride them all.

I love bikes and all the new things coming out. I want it all. :) I do constant upgrades just because it's fun and exiting.

It's sitting on my couch waiting to be built.

I have a bunch of bikes, of all the common materials. All top shelf stuff, not a dog in the bunch. 1000s of miles on every one of them.

When New Years rolls around and I start thinking about what project I'm going to do, I always start with steel. For the reasons I've given. Now I have two custom titanium bikes, and two is enough. I also have 5 aluminum bikes and they're all great. But I'll never add another one. Carbon Fiber - 3 of those and there is still one more out there I want. But I'm in no rush. Steel just does it for me, the whole package for the reasons I've given. Next year's bike - a steel crosser. Year after that? Who knows.

Why does anyone like anything? It's some combination of taste and what the thing does for them. Peets Coffee better than Starbucks - for someone. Ask them to explain it and you're going to get myths, because there is no tangible, data driven means to prove any one thing is better than any other thing when it's people making a taste-based decision. So saying "I don't buy into the myths" is missing the point. Myths are the only things that people can conjure up to explain themselves. For them though, those myths are their reality. It might not be yours, but hey, that's what makes these discussions so interesting.

These discussions always seem to draw hyperbole. Right down to the juvenile "how do I make a sub 18 lb. steel bike" up above. I do think though that in general those who prefer steel do not get into the things you mentioned, slamming AL and CF for silly reasons. I think usually it's other way around.

But you're right, both sides of the argument have their share of losers.

Actually, I'm hoping this one will last at least another 3 months (1977 Paramount)



http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...art/track2.jpg

I mostly ride older steel bicycles (relatively nice ones), and am very used to the ride. A few weeks ago, my LBS let me test ride one of the new Cannondale system six bicycles. It was much lighter, and noticeably faster, and over many of the paved surfaces, it was really quite nice. However, some of the roads around here are chip-sealed, and when I rode on those, the six was quite annoyingly "chattery" in the wheels and handlebars. I realize that some of the difference was due to the wheelset, but I have to say that I prefer the ride of my old steel bikes.

I might cave in next year and get a new aluminum/carbon bicycle, but having to settle for a "chattery" ride would be a deal-killer.

One tip for those of you riding steel frames: make sure it's still straight.

Years ago, my brother and I attended a USCF Mechanics Clinic in Colorado Springs. My brother volunteered his Triumph (a late-80s Raleigh knock-off) for the frame-straightening portion of the training. Prior to this, he'd been happy with the ride, although he felt it could be better. When they put his frame on the table and checked the alignment, they discovered that, while his rear wheel was centered in the drop-outs, the rear triangle was not in line with the main triangle. They also discovered his head tube wasn't in line with the seat tube (based on the parallel faces of the bottom bracket). The instructors proceeded to cold-set his frame into allignment. He went for a ride on it the next morning, and was astounded at the improved ride: it was more responsive and felt quicker.

A tip for those riding steel frames???

Man, try and buy an aluminium bike frame that's perfectly straight brand new. The current popularity of vertical dropouts has shown EVERY aluminium framed bike I've owned to be out of alignment. Try cold setting an aluminium frame too!

Regards, Anthony

In any field, there's always something better (maybe) & more expensive. Not having the money constrains me from buying new bikes, but frankly i'm happy with my 90 Peugeot Success & 70s Puch. (i have 2 bikes so if one is in the shop i can still ride, & my Puch has fenders for the wet days).

They're old friends that provide workaday transport. Yes, i love my humble bikes. I couldn't see replacing one unless there was major frame damage. I upgrade once in a while, usually when a part wears out. The longer i ride them, the more they mean to me.

Steel Frames
 

Steel frames have a certain springyness thats hard to explain. I agree that steel frames should just be old hat but once youve owned a decent steel frame theres no going back. I have owned an orange P7 mountain bike for 10 years with a steel frame and it never ceases to amaze me. I also own an alloy Litespeed Capella with Campag record components and Ksyrium wheels but it just doesnt have the wow factor of steel. I have just bought a 1970,s 753 Raleigh which i have wanted since i can remember. If i had to get rid of one it would be the Litespeed and i still cant really explain why? Cheers. Nick.

I feel the same way,. altho i've never ridden anything but steel so i can't compare.:) My first 2-wheeler was a maroon Raleigh 3 spd (don't know the year, it was used when i got it in 1960).

Next was a tank Sears Puch '63 or '64 with big straight welded tubes, black, that never failed, high school. It went away at some point.

Then a long hiatus before i got my new blue Peugeot Success '90 with oversized double butted tubing, fierst & only new bike so far, & a '60s or '70s stovepipe Puch in light metallic green, not sure what model, that decal is gone.

I'm lucky to have two really nice road bikes. One is steel (a 2000 LeMond Zurich-Reynolds 853 steel) and a carbon fiber LOOK KG 461. I owned a Felt F65 prior to these two bikes (aluminum w/CF seat stays and fork) and the Felt was by far the worst riding material of the three...40 miles on that and I felt very tired and sore. The LeMond is every bit as comfortable as my LOOK bike but the LOOK weighs in at slightly under 17lbs while the LeMond is slightly under 20lbs. Honestly, I'm not any faster on the LOOK though I do enjoy riding and commuting on both bikes equally. Both are Campy bikes, the LeMond is all Chorus 9spd with Record/Open Pro wheels while the LOOK is Chorus 10spd with Ksyrium SL wheels.

In short, steel is an excellent material to make bikes out of. The only thing aluminum has over steel IMO is slightly lower weight; all other advantages go to steel. Carbon fiber has the light weight of aluminum and can have the ride characteristics of steel but CF is very brittle and when it fails it fails catastrophically.

Many very high quality steel bikes have been built over the years and it's not hard to find a quality used steel frame that will make a beautiful and enjoyable riding bike that will last for decades.

Would I race professionally on a steel framed bike? Probably not. But you'd be hard pressed to find a more durable, high quality, cost effective material to make bikes out of IMO.

BTW-I rode my CF bike this morning. :D

Here are 2 reasons why.... :)

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/157...touchediq1.jpg

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/6898/ride1adk4.jpg

These two images are worth 10,000 words.

Thanks Reynolds, I could have typed it out, but this seemed easiest :lol:

Here is my favorite reason. :)

http://home.comcast.net/~tmundal/DSC00565.JPG

Just one of the reasons Patriot is the President of OCP. He has the bike for every situation.

And this is one of my Reasons why not :D

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/462...emediumqy7.jpg

the frame on my Lemond Buenos Aires
 

the frame on my Lemond Buenos Aires weighs 3.8 lbs.

Another reason why...

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/9...build019bu.jpg

What is more timeless classic that Cinelli Steel? :beer:

Ah, hell...I'll throw in with the Pro-steel side. I do have titanium so I'm not completely biased.

Edit: These are just some of the steel bikes I've owned this year. Unfortunately, I don't have any photos of my two Treks (an '85 420 and an '85 520) or the '84 Schwinn Paramount that I bought and eBay'ed earlier in the year (really wish I'd kept the Paramount).

+1

I've ridden everything except titanium, and everyone has different wants and needs. I'm quite sure I'd probably love the ride of a nice titanium frame, but right now, my OCLV Trek does exactly what I want and need it to do.

In fact, if I had the money, I'd love to build up a Merckx just like Grasschopper just picked up. I absolutely LOVE the look of that bike.

Then again, some of us just love bikes. I'm sure there's plenty of people on here who wouldn't buy a bike because "it's carbon", or because "it's steel". Get over yourselves. For those who still believe the whole "steel is real" movement and refuse to acknowledge anything else, get a clue. For those who think carbon is "the best" and nothing else will suffice, then you probably just picked up a bike after watching Lance in the Tour and have a fairly limited view of what's out there.

As others have already mentioned, there's pros and cons of each material, and everyone has choices. If I had my choice, I'd have about 20 bikes in my basement with the full spectrum of frame materials.

14max you got some sweet rides

Thanks, Serpico. While the Riv and the Cinelli didn't make the cut, the Serotta isn't going anywhere...

I want carbon, but can't barely justify the cost of the ones I want. Ti is definitely intriguing, but when I start thinking about opening my wallet, it doesn't seem to bring much if anything to the table. Weight is not a primary concern, and neither is corrosion resistance. Most of the builders I'm interested don't do Ti, and for me the most important factor besides cost, is the builder/designer.

That leaves steel. I think my next over-the-top project will be steel.