See Farmer John, not many can say they have ridden on a bike as completely and intelligently designed as a Raleigh International. Not many know or can even understand the concept of a bicycle "disappearing" underneath you. I owned a Raleigh Pro. It was my first all Campagnolo equipped road bike. My first ride on it was down a deserted country road sprinkled with fall leaves, a crisp autumn day in Ohio along the Erie Canal. The bike had Clement Campione Del Mondo Seta tires on it, fresh, new, singing silk tires. I'll never forget that ride. You know, and their are others on this forum that know , it's not about the bike, it's about the ride. The total experience is what makes it meaningful for each one of us.

Maybe we've ALL been there -- how do you think we got our butt-cracks?

Seriously, different frame designs do different things.

On road bikes, the frame geometry determines the handling -- very sharp for crits, slacker angles for road racing, laid back and easy for touring and randonneurs. Look at TdF and you will see the same rider user different bikes for different stages -- time trials, the flats and the mountains.

With MTBs, it may be full-suspension Y-frame (or whatever) for downhill where weight is faster; something different for X-country. KHS, I think, even makes a Cro-Mo bike that relies on the flex in the chain-stays, to provide suspension (the seat stays meet at a device atop the seat tube). And what about BMXes?

You *can* make a bike designed for one use do something else, but it could be a challenge to ride comfortably -- a BMX as a touring bike? I don't think so.

So, stripping away the science of materials, yes, frame does make a difference.

However, custom frame builders know their craft, and think nothing of *mixing* tube materials to get the best *perceived* ride quality. Of course, they concentrate on the most appropriate dimensions for the rider as the starting point. Again another point -- the efficiencies of tig/mig welding mean lots and lots of bikes coming out one end of a factory that require compromise in fitting for the end-user. And that's OK. Tig/mig is a money matter, related to efficiency, not necessarily (and I say that advisedly) an improvement over the traditional methods.

To do a test on whether one material or another is better, diamond-frame bikes of exactly the same dimensions and angles, including fork, would need to be built and "blind" tested. IIRC, a magazine had this done, and the difference in ride quality between three (?) different metals types was negligible.

And, if you *really* want a definitive answer on whether frame design does make a difference (as opposed to material), talk to a recumbent rider!

I have to jump in on this. I have done a great deal of Tig welding. I had to go to school to learn to do it for a year. I have never welded on anything at all related to aerospace or autosports. Tig is much more common than you might think. It is in fact by far the easiest method of welding to learn. I have had to learn all three, mig, tig, and arc welding. One of my training requirements was two years of welding school. There are machines that can be programmed to mig weld or arc weld. I cannot concieve of a machine that could be programmed to tig weld. There is too much human judgement required. When I say machine, I am talking about robots, and I have seen plenty of them in car plants and other places that have automated welding processes. I don't believe a machine will be tig welding in the near future. I especially don't think a machine will be tig welding any types of bicycle frames in the future. If one ever does, I would certainly like to see it done. Best -

I'll venture the opinion that a high-quality modern steel frame with thin-walled tubing can offer you a combination of a resilient "steel" ride, along with lower frame weight and less flex, compared to a "traditional" frame using the conventional tubing diameters. Whether that translates into a bigger smile on your face or not, that is the question...

My last road bike's frame didn't look very special... just an ugly blue TIG'ed Fuji with thin-walled steel tubing that was a touch oversized compared to a "traditional" frame. The ride quality was nice, however, and it did enhance my riding experience. Sign me up for some more thin-walled steel, baby... lugged, even!

I'm going to throw a new cat among the pigeons and suggest that you stay with a conventional-type headset, either Aheadset or threaded, if you get a new frame.

I suggest you reapply for your weldoing course. it seems you're abit out of date;

Automated TIG welding has been used extensively by Giant and other manufacturers.
it is not the easiest welding method to master, Mig welding is. But it has other draw bacs which make it unsuitable for Bicycle frame manufacture.


Mechbon;
i agree 100% with that.

............wheels make the bike roll......

Here's the frame question that I have, that I still grapple with in my next big purchase. I apologize for the length of this, but this something that I really don't understand and really need to know since I will be spending a considerable amount of money soon.

I can see how light, better rolling wheels, lighter, higher tolerant cranks and bottom brackets, and better, more accurate shifting easily translates into better performance. I still don't get how the frame, assuming you have proper fit regardless, makes such a big difference, more so than higher end components. Beyond weight (and I always thought rolling resistance weight - cranks, wheels, etc. where considerably more imporant in that regard) what is the advantage of having a better frame. Now I'm not talking about a $4000 frame vs $400, but looking at the beginning segment of better bikes costing $1000 on up.

Take my bike for instance, a Specialized Allez Elite. It's got an aluminum frame. I'm sure it's not the nicest, the lightest, highest quality, but it seems solid, but I think my components leave a lot to be disired. If I want to spend $1500 or so to make it better, I keep hearing get a better frame. I don't get that. To me, a new wheelset would provide a much greater realized and measurable performance improvement.

Would you rather have a $3500 bike with a decent $1000 frame and $2500 worth of some of the nicest compents, or a $2500 frame, with Tiagra or 105 and more of the lower end "consumer" grade coponents? Forget the argument that you can always upgrade. Just think if you had to choose: Great frame - generic components or Top of the line compenents - decent frame.

When you have 15 years experience, you can decide for yourself which type of welding is easier to do. Any body with limited experience on a tig, knows that it is much easier and cleaner than a mig. Also, anybody who can use a mig, can weld a steel or aluminum bike frame with that process as well.

What you consider to be "automated tig" is actually known as Orbital Welding. Perhaps you should brush up a bit on your internet searches for information.

TimB,

I don't know what your hang up is.

1. I never made any "steel is real" comment.

2. I merely pointed out that frame design has not changed, only materials and tubes have changed.

3. I also pointed out that a slightly lighter "modern" frame would not significantly improve the average riders performance in a measureable way.

4. I also agree that good, new frames are available at reasonable prices. But I disagree that one needs to buy one in order to keep out on the club ride.

There is a great tendency in many sports and hobbies for faning the flames by manufacturers and others that make a profit when people purchase new equipment. Competition is fierce to offer the 'latest,' 'lightest,' or 'fastest' new widget that "no serious rider" would be without. Sure a lot of the new stuff is nice and I use much of it, but most is totally unnecessary to enjoy cycling and to even be competative at the entry level. This has also fostered a certain amount of 'elitism' amongst some riders who look down upon the poor wretch that shows up on the line without the latest boutique wheelset, or 10 speed cogset.

Back to the original posted question: does a 20 year old steel frameset hold back a rider? Assuming it's a quality butted frameset then the answer is obviously "No." If you don't believe me, then consider what difference a 3 lb weight difference would mean. A typical 175 lb rider on a 23 lb bike weighs a total of 198 lbs. Put the same rider on a "modern" 20 lb bike, the total is 195 lbs. That's a 1.5% difference. That is insignificant. If this same rider were getting dropped at 198, he'll still get dropped at 195. Now if he looses 20 lbs off the engine, he'll kick butt on either bike.

And please don't come back with that tired arguement about frame flex. A metallic frame is a near perfect spring and any energy put into flexing the frame comes back out with very little damping. As a mechical engineer you should know that. That's why cars have shock absorbers (dampers)--otherwise they would bounce continuously.

Dave
who is disgusted with all the hype that "you gotta have the latest or you aint sh_t"--it's the legs, not the bike or the mouth.

After all that discussion and disagreement you now agree? :confused:

ehenz,

I agree that there is a difference which is what I've been saying all along..

A bigger smile on your face is purely subjective and largely dependant on what the riders likes/wants are.

Hayneda,
In theory metal springs are perfect and return to their point of origin with no permanent deformation.
However a Bike frame is designed with a certain amount of pre stressing which reduces the amount of additional stress you can apply to the frame before exceeding the elastic limit. Even a vlaue slightly over the elasticlimit will result in a small amount of creep and eventually permanent deformation of failure. Thats why frames can fail under faigue testing.

Any frame that has been ridden hard for a number of yrs will eventually fail. some tubes simply become soft or more flexible ie looses it's springyness (even car coil soprings have a finite life but are over designed to keep stress within limits).

Bike frames are designed a lot closer to the materials limits, particularly frames manufactured from tubesets such as Reynolds 753, to reduce their weight. The steel frames from the late 80's were at the limit of what was technically possible at that time and as you know, anything pushing the limits is more prone to failure than something operating well within it's limits.

All I have been trying to say (unsuccessfully it seems) is that modern steel frames are better than the old frames form the 80's due to improvements in design ie construction technique, detailing, more in depth analysis of the stresses in the frame and where, tailoring of the material to suit the application, tailoring the shape of the tube to enhance it's moment of inertia at a specific point of a deflection to limit that deflection.

The difference between those two stel frames ie one from 1989 and one from 2003 will be very apparent the moemtn you start turning the pedals.

Whether or not the rider cares is totatlly irrelevant.

Also I did not say that riding an old bike precludes people from enjoying the sport.
The question was;
The frame matters to the overall biking experience because without it you don't have a bike, just a collection of parts. The frame is one aspect of getting your power from your legs to the road. So a heavy flexy frame will be detrimental to your performance even if you like the way it feels. You could be performing better on something that does'nt feel as good but is quicker on climbs and under acceleration.

Yes there will be a huge difference. The more modern bike will be lighter and stiffer and possibly as compliant, all factors which will contribute to whether you like the bike or not.
The older frame should NOT STOP ANYONE RIDING. enjoyment of the sport should not be determined by the equipment.
It will prevent them maximising their performance.

So there you have it. No older frames don't stop you riding, but you will be slower under performance conditions than you could be on a more modern rig.

Well, i guess the general consensus here is that it won't really matter for me, right? I'm no racer, but i'll probably get into club rides and stuff next year.

The difference between a modern frame and an older frame would be too small for a novice rider like me to really notice, right?

That's correct. The differences in your performance would be inconsequencial. The biggest difference you'd likely note would be when lifting the old frame bike onto your bike rack.

However, bikes are cool things. One of the neatest things about cycling is that here you have a sport/pastime/hobby or whatever you call it, where the average middle income person can afford the very best there is in terms of equipment. Not many sports or pastimes enjoy that level of affordability.

My point is, you don't have to have the latest, greatest equipment to have fun, ride with club, or even race successfully and with great enjoyment. But, if it's what you want to spend your money on, there's no reason not to do so if you can afford it. Just don't try to justify that a new Ti frame is going to make you 20% faster--it just aint gonna happen.

Good luck,
Dave

phat,

Thats the point i was making earlier. You can now buy a modern low end bike made of plain gauge aluminium tubing and it would be light and stiff enough for you to enjoy your riding and still compete in intermediate or novice level events and you bike would not be holding you back.
However if it was the 80's equipment of that same level would have you delivering the mail every morning and it would only be available in black.

So if you read whatI'm saying is that if you already have an older frame it will be ok for that level of riding. However if you wnat to spend a bit of money on a new bike you won't have to break the bank to obtain a bike with better performance than your current Oldie.

I've raced my Elcheapo in Kermesse (Criterium, only longer lap aka >1km) because I'm too damn scared of getting my race bike written off by an over zealous Armstrong wannabee.

Enjoy your cycling, whatever you have and if you want to start spending a bit on the sport, You'll probably get kit that will help you perform better for less than $1000.
Thats the way the sport has changed. Better quality lower down the order.

Its ok to just ride and not race,right?

Lets all just go for a ride and be friends again. Besides, I like a debate that is interesting.

oh brother, shokhed ibelieve i said that. man do you love a wind up....

LOL Whats a wind up?

Wait, TimB, you know that i just bought a new Campy veloce triple group with campy scirocco wheels right? I'm not planning on using heavy components from the '80s...

This bike is going to be ridden as a commuter during the week, and maybe some stuff on weekends, depending on my schedule next year.

i wouldn't really put STis and ergo power shifters in the category of "technological advances." it's just a different, MORE EXPENSIVE, way of doing something that was being done quite well all along, in most cases BETTER. shifter/lever popularity can be chalked up to hype and laziness in my opinion.

anyway, i can tell the difference between 853 and 531, and i'm not a professional racer. i can tell the difference between a columbus frame and a reynolds frame just by listening to the ping it makes when i flick it with my finger. what does all of this mean? absolutely nothing!!

if you're not racing professionally, you don't NEED the latest and greatest in weight-saving technology. you need a bike that FUNCTIONS the way it's supposed to function. and one that you're comfortable on.

that said, i ride a lugged steel pinarello from the 80's, which feels SO much better than any aluminum bike i've ever ridden, and looks classier than any modern mass-produced road bike.

Phat,

only problem you may have with new components on your Older frame is the drop out spacing at the rear. older frames used 126mm spacing. Newer frames are 130mm.

May not sound like much but theres enough additional preload on the hub bearings to cause premature wear. YOu may need to widen the rear stays.

For the purposes you going to use the bike it more than adequate, In fact I'd like Veloce on my commuter! I've got a mix and match of Shimano from the late 80's and early 90's on mine.

Well, it's ALSO my 'fun' bike too

Go son and have fun

Ummm, ok so the dimensions have stayed the same, everything else has changed. Discounting construction methods and material in a frame is rather silly don't you think?

Define average rider? We see threads all the time here where somebody bought a bike that was 3-4-5lbs lighter and noticed a fairly nice increase in average speeds, anywhere from 2-3-4mph, that's measurable in my book.

I agree, ride what you got and be happy, but don't dismiss something new as total junk and marketing hype either.

There are a lot of people that put to much emphasis on bike weight, but it is still important...to a point. Bike weight and rider weight don't run at a 1:1 ratio as well, if I remember correctly for every 1lb dropped off the bike it's the same as losing 3lbs from the rider. It works a bit the same as losing weight from wheels and rotational pieces, the dynamics involved are different.

For a simple test, go ride a 20lb bike with a full camelback, then go ride a 30lb bike without the camelback and tell us which felt different.

And simple physics tells us that when energy is "wasted" making the frame flex it means less energy is going to the wheels and ground, the back and forth motion of your frame flex is wasted energy. This has absolutely zero relation or corelation to shock absorbers on a car.

I have to agree to a point, but it's all a system that all has to work together. If you are in perfect physical shape then a 60lb cruiser bike really isn't going to do you any favors on your club ride. On the other hand if you are big and still overweight like me, then spending $7k for the latest 14lb super bike is rather wasted as well.

Andrew
Who rides a 10-12yr old steel bike that flexes quite a bit