shokhead

What is high end steel and whats the differences between all of them,como,853,foco,631,5 something,cant remember them all.

ImprezaDrvr

shokhead, you been drinking today? j/k

High end steel is kind of like high end aluminum, but it's steel instead. In other words, you take an aluminum bike that costs $500 and compare it to one that costs $2000 and compare the frames. The more expensive bike will probably have a lighter frame that has different and, hopefully, improved riding characteristics than the less expensive bike. Same holds true for steel. High end bikes, like those made of 853 or many of the brand name steels, will weigh less at the frame and the frame will be built to bring out different and, hopefully, better ride characteristics. As for the different types of steel, someone has a thread on here about them already. I don't know my arsehole from my elbow when it comes to the different alloys.

TimB

the better steel alloys are not Crome Molybdenum (4130, Reynolds 525) but are Manganese Molybdenum (853,653,531 TT Lite), Nickel-vanadium-chrome (NiVaCromand others)
These air harden after welding so require no heat treatment.
They are also stronger at the weld than anywhere else in the tube.

ParamountScapin 

For Reynolds, the higher the number the better the tubing for bicycle frames, generally speaking. Can be made thinner while maintaining good strength and riding characteristics. The other names, such as Columbus, Dediacciai, True Temper, Tange, etc., are a little more esoteric and difficult to follow. However, they all have websites that can be found under a Google search and give reasonable explanations of their tubing in English. All these names make excellent tubing for bicycle building.

CroMoly was the "standard" steel used in tubing for bicycles for many years, until the mid-70's, or so, when the tubing guys started working with the steel suppliers to provide specially formulated steels that had the characteristics that allowed them to be drawn down and double and triple butted to reduce sidewall thickness (i.e. weight). Serotta also uses varing tube cross-sections in the CSI seat-tube. Allows for lighter weight while maintaining a stiff bottom braket.

As with tubing formulations, the majority of these changes have only taken place over the past ten to fifteen years as the state-of-the-art in metallurgy has advanced. Now we are offered not only the varying thichness of tubing, but also varying geometry like the Serotta CSI seat-tube or the downtube in a "Geode" shape, as on my new Scapin. Colnago probably lead the charge on this with their MasterLite from the late 80's. It is a lugged frameset with a top-tube cross-section that is not round. Has two, uniform indentations drawn along its length and is very clever. Paramount also started offering OS (over sized) tubing from Tange in 1990.

As TimB mentions above, the new steels are formulated to adapt to the TIG method of fabrication (electric arc welding rather than brazing) and the welded seam/joint is stronger than the balance of the tubing as a result of the steel formulation. The major reason for going to TIG welding is not the lack of skilled craftsman but rather is cost. Lugs are relatively inexpensive for a set ($35 to $100), but are expensive in the terms of time to put together. A TIG'd frame can be set up in a jig and welded by machine in an hour or two. And takes very little "skill", as the machine does the work. A lugged frame can be set up in a jig and brazed together in about a day, if you are good. Then it requires some final finish work to insure that the brazing materials are cleaned properly, which generally requires some smoothing with files, etc. More labor. People with the skills to provide the workmanship required to make lugged (silver brazed is best) frames are getting scarce, as most companies have turned to TIG welding. Thus, lugged frames are generally from the artisan shops where these skills are maintained at the required level by a few good builders. That is why most lugged frames today are from the custom houses. Even Serotta, which is a fairly good sized high-end builder, only supplies their CSI lugged frameset (and it is truly a beautiful work of art) on a custom order basis. Same with Waterford, Richard Sachs, etc. But they are truly wonderful machines.

I'll soon find out just how the TIG'd frames ride as I get some miles on my new Scapin and can compare to my wonderful old Paramount.

Enjoy!!

Merckxrider

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TimB

"The better steel alloys are Manganese Molybdenum (853,653,531 TT Lite), Nickel-vanadium-chrome (NiVaCromand others)

These air harden after welding so require no heat treatment.
They are also stronger at the weld than anywhere else in the tube."


Do you happen to know which frame manufacturers use these specific materials?


Steve

ParamountScapin 

They all use whatever they think is best for their particular bike. For instance, Waterford tends to use 853 with True Temper Platinum OX on the chainstays on their high-end bikes, if I remember correctly. Lemond uses 853 on their better steel frames, Scapin uses Columbus, Guru uses Dedacciai. Serotta uses something they call their Colorado formulation. Each company uses what they believe to be the best for their purposes. No doubt a mixture of quality, cost and marketing. Check each builders' website. They usually list their materials of construction. Part of the marketing. But all are very good today. The state-of-the-art in metallurgy is very good today. Has moved from the realm of 'magic' to that of science over the past 40 years. And the technology has trickled down to such mundane applications as bicycles. Which is good for us.

TimB

Hi Mercyx rider,

I know Fondriest uses Dedacchai tubes EOM 16.5 for their status carb (the only steel bike int heir potfolio.
Guru uses Dead as well and will also build in Reynolds if you so wish - the bike is custom after all.
Duell A dutch bike manufacturer <https://www.duell.nl> uses Comunbus, Deda, and Reynolds tubes.

Essentially any company that builds custom frames will build in YOUR material of choice.
All the major manufacturers utilise a Manganese Molybdenum steel for their top of th range frames as Paramount says because these steels air harden and better and more relaible frames can be built from them.

Generally an Italian built steel frame will use: Dedacchai or Columbus
British, Amerian or continental european: Reynolds, Dedaccahi, Columbus, TT

For a more detailed look into the tube sets, you'll have to search the web and see what bikes are available. Tubesets for the same model can vary from year to year as tube set supply contracts change and frame builders look for better deals to maximise their margins.
Colnago currently make the highest margin on their bikes due to the inflated price tag associated to teh Colnago name.

Bianchi aslo make a production Mega Pro in Bororn hardened steel. This is a really nicely bike to ride and own if you can

ParamountScapin 

TimB - You mentioned Colnago and their popularity (and attendant pricing). I was at my LBS the other day and I ask why he didn't have any steel Colnago's on the floor (aluminum or graphite, only). He told me that Colnago has trouble selling them and hasn't been building any steel for over a year unless on a custom basis. They have a storage area with several hundred of various sizes and models of steel frames that aren't even painted. The problem is that graphite composite and aluminum are all the rage, especially in Europe, and no one is buying steel. Guess he learned this first-hand late last year during his visit to the factory. Form over function, I guess.

slide13

I find that very hard to beleive. We have just become a Colnago dealer at my shop and the only Colnago we currently have in stock is a steel Classic. I'm sure the high end aluminum and carbon frames are hot sellers, but I doubt that Colnago is having a hard time selling the Classic and MXL frames.

I could be wrong, but I wouldn't beleive that until I hear it from multiple sources. Sounds to me like somebody talking down a product they don't happen to have in stock.

TimB

In europe there is a strong movement towards using steel frames as training frames. Very few people want to fork our £600 for a steel Colnago frame when there are plenty of cheaper, fit for purpose frames about.
Fondriest has trouble selling their status carb in large volumes. In fact the volumes on the frame is so low is could be considered a custom frame.

Around here peole will prefer to spend their money on a bike which the pro's are riding i.e, lightweight aluminium or carbon fibre, irrespective of the drawbacks (perceiveed or not) these materials have in terms of life expectancy.

shokhead

Wow,is that jamis eclipse a sweat steel bike but at $2600 bucks,thats twice what i really want to spend.I think the wheelset is half the price.I cant seem to find any info on the cervelo prodigy like wheelbase,chainstay lenght,weight.

SD Fixed

I find this hard to swallow, coming from someone who says that alumimum bikes have a shorter life span. Where is the data from failed aluminum frames. Sounds like the whole numb penis thing all over again.

SD Fixed

What are the reasons you speak of? Where are the claims from the testers as to why they don't use them?

Where again do you get this data?

Another quote on time, but where do you get it from? It seems to me that you're ready to spout anti aluminum, prefer steel (which is fine, it's preference) but you have nothing to back up this claim?


As a kid, I had several steel bikes that died. A schwinn Scramble, a Univega, the older better versions of Nishiki. 2 of the 3 failed on me.
Now, I have many friends with steel and many with aluminum. While we give eachother plenty of guff about our choices, none have had failure. This includes a cannondale that sees DAILY street use, and is 8 years old. By your reconning, he should be severly injured at any given moment (OH MY GOSH!!!). But yet, he rides on.

Please, show me where this is written, people who have had actual experience, pictures of the frame failure.

Don't you think with the media bieng the way they are, that as soon as aluminum bikes started to give way, they'd jump all over it? Just like the impotance/seat issues that caught fire.

I say that this story is perpetuated internet myth.

Please, prove me wrong.

Merckxrider

The only thing I was slightly concerned about with an aluminium frame was comfort. But, now that I've put the first 300 hundred miles on my new Merckx, I'm no longer concerned. There's a reason that a bike costs $3200. You really can't go wrong with bikes in this price bracket. I may get a second road bike at some point (because I'm now addicted to them. heh,heh). Maybe I'll get a steel frame, so I can have the best of both worlds. One more thing, I HAVE seen two different MTB frames snap. One was a Rocky MT. and the other was a Yeti. I suspect they were both steel, as their tubes looked very narrow. This was about 10 years ago and they were both hardtails. Both snapped by the rear derailer. I suppose this type of failure created the onslaught of rear suspension. I know that the technology for MTB frames has improved dramatically over the past several years. In any case, I have yet to see a quality roadbike frame snap (in any material). That's why I have been asking for examples...would love to see pics of 3 year old alu. frames that have been cracked, particularily of the Colnago & Fondriest that were mentioned. Road frames don't even come close to the abuse a MTB frame takes...unless you've got plans to ride in the Roubaix anytime soon!!

Steve

ParamountScapin 

Below is a response from Professor Larry Lessard who tests bicycles and bicycling components as part of his research in the Mechanical Engineering Department at McGill Univ. He has developed some nice testing equipment for bicycles. Check out his work, which appears pretty thorough.

Quote:
The answer to your question lies in the fatigue resistance of various materials. Normal riding conditions are supposed to be conditions well below what it takes to break a frame in one load, known in engineering as "low level fatigue" conditions. Some materials have what we call a "fatigue limit", which is a load level that will give you a nearly infinite fatigue life. In other words, if you subject a material to low levels of load, it should last forever. Carbon fiber has a very high fatigue limit and thus performs very very well under low level fatigue loading. Most metals do not have a high fatigue limit. Aluminum is a good example. No matter how low is your applied load level, aluminum will eventually fail in fatigue.

Bicycles should be designed well if they are to avoid fatigue failure. Normally a bicycle sees low loads, and maybe a few high loads (heavy climbing, near accidents, etc). A reasonable number might be 5000-10,000 high loads. Will the aluminum withstand 10,000 such loads? Personally, I wouldn't trust it. One should take a hint from the tremendous problems of aging aircraft. Aluminum parts are failing and cracking near rivet holes.

-----------------------------------------------

_/ _/ Larry Lessard
_/ _/ Associate Professor
_/ arry _/ essard Department of Mechanical Engineering
_/ _/ McGill University
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ 817 Sherbrooke St. West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2K6
larry.lessard@McGill.Ca phone (514) 398-6305 fax (514) 398-7365
Visit my homepage at https://www.mcgill.ca/mecheng/staff/academic/lessard/

My own experience is limited to a riding companions '94 C'Dale cracking at the down-tube/headtube junction in '98. As he bought the bike used he was out of luck.

As far as testing aluminum forks, the obvious reason they weren't tested is that there are none available to test. At least the carbon fork manufacturers did not deem it fit to include any. Who makes high-end aluminum forks? I am sure that if they are out there someone will find them for me (us).

As a mia culpa, I admit that the state-of-the-art in the use of aluminum (and all materials) used in bicycles has advanced greatly in the past 5 years. New alloys, much better design and advanced fabrication have resulted in better bicycles. Regardless of our feelings about our sport, it is rather small in dollar volume compared to industries that drive research. Thus, we only get "trickle down" benefits. So, perhaps aluminum today is as good as it proponents state. But it has not always been. Time will tell.

SD Fixed

This appears to be a more accurate statement. You propose that al bikes are limited in thier life span, and yes you've had an experience with it. However, that was on an older bike, and admittadely, many years back.

Now with your advocation that aluminum bikes are only good for 5 years or 6. That means that we need to look for failures in the 1997 - 1998 production time frame. Do you know of any?

The proffesor you mention, at first glance, didn't test any frames for failure. He only tested them for vibration, in conjuction with MTB supsension development. He did test forks. None of which are al.

Now, why are there no al forks? Is this due to failure? Or to the fact that the tubes would have to be too big (an areo dynamic failure) or too stiff (a problem for those lighter wieght riders).

And please understand, this is no a pro al point I'm bringing.

I fell for the numb penis seat gag. I intend to not fall or let myth self perpetuate.

The equivlant is that an early Ford hatchback would erupt into flame when rear ended. We do not shun ford hatchbacks now for that reason, do we? As time goes on, things are improved upon, and it's not right to say it's still a problem if you don't know it is.

Ajay213

A couple of links.

The first is bicycle related, talking about Al as a material;
https://www.sjsu.edu/orgs/asmtms/artcle/alumin.htm

In fact, it's an excellent primer for all materials, so a link to the first page;
https://www.sjsu.edu/orgs/asmtms/artcle/articl.htm

Talking about Steel vs Al used in boat, talks a lot about how Al is overbuilt to overcome the fatigue limits;
https://www.kastenmarine.com/alumVSsteel.htm

Basically I think just about everybody has good points here, Al does have a specific lifespan, the point is that it can be made to the point that it is so far in the future you will never hit it. The SN curves on all Al will hit zero at some point, but properly made you shouldn't ever hit those fatigue limits.

The examples of airplanes is a poor one, and I wish I never brought it up. But needless to say an airframe still has a lifespan in the 20-30+ year range. And considering the stress's a plane goes through, that's pretty amazing. A 747-400ER has a max takeoff weight of 910,000lbs. Of course as mentioned the amount of engineering that went into that 747 is lightyears ahead of what goes into designing a bike.

As to Al and it's uses and it's "lifespan", how many people have used Al handlebars? Al stems? Al seat-posts? Al rims? Al hubs? Al brakes? There are people out there with 20-30+ yr old bikes with tens of thousands of miles on them with a lot of Al parts on them, which haven't broken yet.

Oh and Kinesis is still making Al forks.
https://www.bikeman.com/catalog/forks...nesisroadd.htm

Andrew

SD Fixed

Did you ever see the Boeing special where they tied the plane down and streched the wings up to find thier breaking point? It was bizarre!

Ajay213

I don't have a big fear of flying, but I'm not exactly comfortable with it either. And back in my traveling years being long in the leg I'd always get an emergency exit seat which are almost always on the wings, and flying through turbulence/weather it was always rather un-nerving to look out the window and watch the wing-tips flapping like a bird, going through what is probably 2-3ft of up-down travel. Then I remember watching things like the stress tests on planes, the one on the wings is always a good one where they bend the wing up to where the tip of it is about 10-15ft from where it should be before it fails.

Of course that's not nearly as enlightning as flying over an ocean in a 777, which only has 2 engines. I know it will fly with one engine, but how well does it fly with 1 engine...lol

Andrew

FOG

there are two main sets of conerns with respect to failures of aluminum structural parts in aircraft. the first is in the skins of pressurized aircraft, such as the aloha airlines aircraft which had a skin failure. that plane had been doing little more than climbing and descending its entire service life, a hard life indeed. the the was a series of piper cherokee aircraft which ahd been used in pipeline patrolling, which is low light and fast, all of which increase the loads on the wing spar. the extent of their service was unusual. if you are wondering how being light can affect a plane adversely, it lowers the stall speed, and consequently increases the number of g's it takes to stall the wing at higher speed, so when a light fast plane hits turbulence it gets a real shock, where a heavier plane would have a short duration accelrated stall, and experience fewer g's.
The ultimate load on the wing would be identical but the acceleration would be greater for the lighter plane.

there are few or no cases where aluminum is failing through routine use in aviaton, where it was designed adequately.

If I had a structural concern about bicycle structures it would most likely be in the heat affected zones of steel welds. the fact that some steels get stronger where they are affected would not give me comfort, because that just moves the stress point to somewhere else in the structure.

nonetheless we seeneither failures in steel nor aluminum bicycles. It appears that bicycles are sufficiently overdesgined in most materials that short of a crash a failure is unlikely.

The corrosion issue is a red herring. I have a mid 70's le tour with no corrosion, and my friend has my mid 60's varsity. I used car wax on the letour and never got any corrosion. the varsity has had a harder life, and has very limited corrosion..

weight is weight- make your own call.

that brings us to ride quality. I have test ridden aluminum bikes and like some of them better than my le tour. maybe a century or two would alter my perception, but I really think the most important issue is fit, not frame material.

lotek 

well this is a subject thats as clear as mudd.

Some interesting links about frame materials
specifically testing deflection:
Damon Rinards tests at Sheldon's web site
Open University U.K. (this one has some
really interesting photos of CF frame failures, as well
as comonent failures.
Reynolds USA Of course they are sort of biased.
Finally I'll Add Jobst Brandts site (I think its his,
he answered most of the questions.
Yarchive

I really couldn't find statistics for frame failures by
material but I'm sure the info is out there somewhere.

Marty

Waldo

AL does not have a fatigue limit such that if you subject it to stresses below said limit it will never fail; this much is true. The reality is that most riders will never subject the material to enough cycles at sufficiently high stresses to cause failure. There's many other factors involved as well-the alloy used (obviously), the amount of elongation involved in shaping the tubeset, nature of butting, etc. Then there's the methods involved in processing the alloy-cold-working, annealing, heat treating. There is much misinformation out there on this topic and many people could benefit from reading a materials engineering text. If AL is so prone to failure, why do nearly all manufacturers provide a lifetime warranty on their AL frames? Just my pennies' worth.

Ajay213

To expand that further, the curve when talking about load vs cycles vs longevity is not a static scale. If you subject the frame to say 1lb less stress for every cycle you increase it's life by an exponential factor. Essentially by decreasing by 1lb you would gain say 10,000 extra cycles - if you decrease load by 2lb's you would gain 50,000 extra cycles - by 3lbs you gain 150,000 extra cycles (numbers just thrown out there to demonstrate exponential curve).

Basically if your design and material are all well engineered, you probably will never have a problem for the life of the bike.

Of course I wouldn't put any longevity bets down on a 1.6lb Al ultra-light versus a 2.5lb ultra-light steel frame, but I'd say thats the exception and not the rule.

Andrew

shokhead

All this is fine but for us reg joe rider,frame failure is the last thing we need to think or worry about.I just want a good steel road bike.853 and columbus foco seems to be the best bet and used on most good steel bikes.

SD Fixed

Well, it's time for me to get off my alum high horse here. What I've seen is a lot of perpetuated myth about al failing. Many folks here have spouted things that are EXACT COPIES of what they've read in magazines. And yet, others with decent technical knowledge refer to studies that are not based in real life. The answer is, the normal rider won't have issue. And as a few, clear headed, the emporer is naked, let's get back to other things folks have said it comes down to preference.

Which do I prefer?

I have Al now. But I think I'm gonna get a Ti bike in about a year. Probably the new QR that's road geom with Tri areo..