I got to wondering, how much does a frame REALLY matter to the overall bike experience? I'm wondering this cause it seems like my frame is the weakest link of all my components (it was the cheapest at least).

Basically, i'm wondering if there would be a huge difference in ride quality, going from an 80s bianchi steel frame to say, a more modern tig welded steel bianchi frame?

Frame is the most important component of the bike. You need to get some photogs up so I can see your frame. I may be able to help you ID it. Closeups of the fork crown, head lugs, seat stay caps(at seat lug), and dropouts will help.

The difference between a good lugged frame and a good TIG frame is subjective, and will vary depending on a zillion different factors.

Put some b4 photogs up also, if you have them.

I think it will depend a great deal on which end of the Bianchi spectrum the frames were/are from. An upper level steel frame from the '80s is not going to
give up much if anything to a contemporary steel frame. It will be a bit heavier. It will have some draw backs if you want to deretro the old frame with say a 9spd groupo of some sort. According to some posters recently a good deal of Italian invective will accompany any attempt to put a Sh.... group on. Steve

any frame fromthe 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames.

Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness.

I've relegated My 1989 model Bianchi SL to a training bike with odd bits and pieces hanging off it. It's way heavier than an really cheap AL frame I picked up my LBS for £200! It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality.

Bike gemetry and design hascomealong way over the last 15yrs.

Quote:

"any frame from the 80's is giving up a lot to even the cheaper modern frames."

Isn't that a sweeping statement? Based on what?

Quote:

"Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness."

I thought most modern frames were a compromise, designed to give value at a given price point, for a wide variety of consumers. That "blend" may or may not suit you as an individual.

Quote:

"It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality."

I call 'more flexy' a difference in ride quality. I also might prefer a more or less resilient ride to you.

Quote:

"Bike geometry and design has come a long way over the last 15yrs."

I ride bikes with 74 degree seat angles and 54 centimetre top tubes. These measurements and thus the geometry, have remained unchanged for 35 years because my thigh length, back length and arm length have remained unchanged. Please explain what I'm doing wrong- and tell the major manufacturers who still appear to use the formulae they used in the 80's...fork rake, castor angle, seat stay length, etc., etc.

Design. Hmmmm. You mean carbon fibre saddles? Carbon Fibre forks and stays to make a bike tolerable to ride all day? Or something groundbreaking, like aheadsets? How did we survive without those?

I don't think you generalising like this is helping the poster. I think he should ride a bunch of frames to see what he likes but not over-invest in a frame he isn't satisfied with.

Well, when this thing is finished, i still ahve the option of trading up to a better frame in 2 years or so. I can reuse most of the components.

No it's not a sweeping statement. Frames in the 80's were silver soldered together using lugs. Today they are tig welded in inert atmospheres. This change alone has allowed lighter, more rigid and tunable designs.

Quote:

"Most modern frames are carefully engineered to give you the right blend of strength weight and responsiveness."

I thought most modern frames were a compromise, designed to give value at a given price point, for a wide variety of consumers. That "blend" may or may not suit you as an individual.

are you saying that frames from the 80's are not a compromise?!
Every frame is compromise. always has been always will be, It's just that the newer designs are better at it than the old ones

Quote:

"It's also more flexy and there's no discernable difference in ride quality."

I call 'more flexy' a difference in ride quality. I also might prefer a more or less resilient ride to you.

By flexy i refer to lateral stiffness, ie BB sway. The cheap Al frame I have is just as compliant vertically as the old steel one but much stiffer at the bb.

Quote:

"Bike geometry and design has come a long way over the last 15yrs."

I ride bikes with 74 degree seat angles and 54 centimetre top tubes. These measurements and thus the geometry, have remained unchanged for 35 years because my thigh length, back length and arm length have remained unchanged. Please explain what I'm doing wrong- and tell the major manufacturers who still appear to use the formulae they used in the 80's...fork rake, castor angle, seat stay length, etc., etc.

OPtions open to riders are far greater today than they were in the 80's. Now theres compact geometry, sport geometry along with the conventioanl geometry. The basic dimentions that make a bike work for a rider are still the same, the technology of tube shaping and tuning these hapes and materials to achieve a specific ride for a different size frames of the same model is a definate improvement.

Quote:

Design. Hmmmm. You mean carbon fibre saddles? Carbon Fibre forks and stays to make a bike tolerable to ride all day? Or something groundbreaking, like aheadsets? How did we survive without those?

If you like the old systems then fine, you keep them, but I appreciate the weight savings and gain in strength of the A-Headset system. CF saddles?? Gimick!
CF forks are an improvement, provided you're talking monomoulded forks like the Reynolds Ouz Pro

WRT design I refer mainly to improvements in materials: Tube shaping, varying wall thickness in specific areas, not just butting, varying tube diameter and blending these different shapes together to achieve a different feel. Even Elcheapo AL frames achieve this quite nicely today. Perhaps we can live without it but will you give up your car in support of your arguement??

Quote:

I don't think you generalising like this is helping the poster. I think he should ride a bunch of frames to see what he likes but not over-invest in a frame he isn't satisfied with.

If you refer back to the original post, you will notice that the question was a general one and therefore you get a generalised answer. If you want me to answer indepth you'll have to wait for the book.

So, a bottom of the line Bianchi will be a better ride than
say, a Carlsbad Masi? A Confente? A Colnago Mexico?
What about an early Richard Sachs?
Serotta, Tommasini, Pogliaghi, Eisentraut, Paramount,
Gios, DeRosa, all very fine steel Lugged Frames.
I'd put my 85 Trek up against most steel bikes currently
made (production, not say Sachs Vanilla, Moon, Kirk etc.).
FWIW the Lugs vs. TIG (or Fillet Brazed for that matter) has
very little to do with ride quality, its a method of joining tubes
thats all.

Marty

all wonderful pimpy works of art.
However what makes them any different from any other lugged steel frame of the same era?
The name, the paint job and of course the attention to detail.

as I stated in my earlier post. I have a Lugged Columbus SL Bianchi from 1989 and a 6061-T6 elceheapo aluminium frame Dave Quinn as training bikes and it is very clear to me, everytime I step over the Al bike that is superior in performance to the Bianchi in every way and relatively it cost's a lot less.

So yes I would say that an ElCheapo Bianchi would give any of those Pimpy Steel Dinosaurs you mentioned a reall run for their tubing on a climb, TT or a Sprint.
Quite simply IME, Modern bikes perform better than bikes of 15 yrs ago.

OPS: 'Simply' Joining tubes together is a joke. Weld quality and solder quality will vary depending on the skill of the welder /solderperson conducting the work.
Today there is a bigger skill base in the industry to produce quality frames than there was 15 yrs ago.

This 'we must bow down and worship the old stuff' is ridiculous. I'll giv you a 10er for all of them and then you can watch me crush them in a press and send them on for recycling. Thats all those old frames are good for anyway.
Perhaps I'll turn them into chairs....

Tim

You my good man are a philistine

I'll take my "pimpy" steel frames, thank you very much.


Please elucidate how an elcheapo machine tig welded bike
which you are using in the arguement about your Bianchi vs Alu
fits into this statement? what skill is there for a machine
to tig the frame?
TIG and Fillet brazing (let alone lugged frames) have been
around a lot longer than 15 years they ar not a recent advancement.

Marty

No, there will not be. There will be a dig difference in marketing cost to the manufacturer and that will be passed to you, but you have already spent that money.

If I had to guess on the differences in ride quality of modern steel vs. modern steel of the 80's I would bet the average road rider would not know the difference provided the geometry was the same.

Anyone who states otherwise must be finishing a career as a pro-rider and has the experience on both, or they have bought into the marketing hype on "new" welding techniques.

I know others don't agree, but that is my thought on the subject. I just see bike makers having to come up with an edge over the others to sell bikes. Bottom line is you pay for wieght, modern steel frames weigh less, sometimes as much as a pound compared to quality bikes of the past.

Regards,

ehenz

Ouch! That hurt! You wouldn't really do that would you? Of course, thats the way I felt 28ys ago when I was looking at a state of the art ,20 yr old racing frame from some Italian factory where some guy took a hammer and pounded the lugs into shape around the tubes while the whole thing was cherry hot and comparing it to my state of the art Tim Isaac work of "art".

But to me, the old italian frame provoked no emotive attachment because I hadn't experienced my first ride on silks on a frame like that; I hadn't had a peak experience cresting a hill on an endorphin high, and witnessed the rising sun over a fall valley on a frame like that; I hadn't had the biggest competitive win of my life in the local criterium on a frame like that. All those things make a person -feel- like everything about that bike, the ride, the form , the function is in fact the peak of expression in bicycle form and function. Everything else before and after is abherrant.

While acknowledging the advances in technology and the benefits that some of the bicycles today have, I still feel, for what are to me objective reasons, that the bicycle that Indurain rode on, the bicycles from the time of the step in pedal to the advent of the indexing systems, were the peak of minimalist expression in the development of the bicycle. But then, that's just me.

The point here being that this is an almost impossible argument to discuss objectively. As a result, the only answer as to what is right is what evers right for you.

Thats one more off the Xmas Card list then.

The skill in the machine welder is th repeatability of the quality of the weld. The operator can set up the machine to weld frame after frame with similar amounts of weld, similar temperatures and a similar weld run time. Cheaper and more consistant quality. Can only be a good thing for everyone.

Yes Tig Welding has been around for a long time but it was confined to the Aerospace and Autosports industry's.

So in short more skilled personel to either do the weldign themselvesor set up machine to do it should tranlate into higher quality.
So if someone wanting to get into the sport today goes to a LBS to buy a bike at a specific price point he/she will be better off than someone purchasing at a simialr price point 15 yrs ago.

Why?
1)Quality control is better

2)Materials are more advanced as well as aftertreatment employed

3)availability of skilled labour is higher making it easier for manufacturers to get good people
4) More widespread use of CNC machines for tube mitrering alignment and welding makes quality more consistent.

5) even though the basic geometry is still the same, the interaction of the differently shaped tubes at the junctions has improved stress distribution resulting lighter frames that are just as strong.

In short, again, modern frames are superior to their counterparts of 15yrs ago, Believe it......................... or not

I don't know much about bike frames, but i have to agree with you .....when it comes to cars.
I've had countless arguements about how a midlevel sportcar made today puts even super cars made in the 70s and 80s to shame. for instance a 2003 corvette Z06 vs. a 1989 ferrari Tesstarossa. The corvette wins in almost every aspect of performance, but you're always goin to have people that love the classics. The bottomline is that it is all about opinion and arguing about opinion isn't worth the time. If someone thinks that something is better because its not mass produced let them have their silly opinion. I would rather save my money and get better performance rather than sacrifice it for exclusivity.

1) Agreed, ever seen the lugwork on some of the Italian
Masters frames? They didn't care about it, the bike had to
ride right, and had to be brazed correctly, they didn't care
about the asthetics of the frame, it was a machine to be used
for racing. However that can't be said of modern framebuilders such
as Albert Eisentraut, Richard Sachs, Peter Weigle, David Kirk,
Curt Goodrich, Brian Baylis, Peter Moon (I could go on if you want)
who take unprecedented amounts of pride in their workmanship.

2)531 was pretty good stuff, as was the Columbus SL, SLX TSX
etc. how does it stack up against say 853? I'm betting that
very few could discern the difference.

3) How much skilled labour is needed for the machines to consistantly weld a frame? one person to set it up per factory?
I don't think this plays into it. I also don't think that whoever is
building low end bikes this week really cares.

4) but where are the file marks? Sure CNC helps but if its welded
poorly its a moot point. I think TIG is useful in hiding bad mitres,
poor joints etc.

5) Case in point, Ben Serotta double taper tubes, he invented the idea with his Colorado tubing (1986), as well as S-Bend
chain stays, that was in 1984 (older than your 15 year cut off)

6) No TIG welded bike has ever been mentioned in the same
sentence with the word mojo.

7) Does this mean I don't get a Channukah card too?

Marty

Balderdash.

There have been no bike geometry or design innovations of much consequence in the past 50 years--save mtn bikes of course. Certainly superior quality metals and tube sets are available; and TIG welding has allowed the introduction of low skill, mass manufacturing of bike frames (as well as aluminum and Ti frames). Nevertheless, a good butted and lugged steel frame from the 80's will be a pound or so heavier, but will ride just fine for anything other than very high performance racing.

Dave
who likes dropping young snot-nosed titanium racer types while riding his old, lugged steel fixed gear bike

I guess Sti or ergo power shifts don't rank up there with design innovation then.

Your comment on Tig welding allowing low skill manufacturing is very funny indeed. Have you ever tried to Tig weld 2 thin walled tubes together? I guess not. If done by hand, it requires more skill than brazing does which is why it's actually better to have a machine do it.
In fact Silver soldering is considered a low skill job in industry these days.

I suppose high strength adhesives are also not a technical breakthrough,
Nor carbon fibre frames (essentially reinforced Tupperware)

No the fact that 6Al 4V titanium can be manufactured into tubes.

Hollowtech cranks?? Theres a manufacturing breakthrough!

10 speed cassettes is another.

Of course the biggest breakthrough of all is improvements in rider training through use of HRM's. Ohhhhhhh getting too techno for you

Perhaps all these advancements as you call it is just fashion. Buthey if fashion makes me ride faster, I'm there at opening time.

Tim,

thanks for clearing up a few points.

-I agree that lateral stiffness was an issue for lots of people in the 80's. Not for me, though..I had a 753 frame, with cast lugs and the tubes were short (I mentioned my short legs earlier). Best climbing frame I ever rode.

I also rode frames back then which were glued together and others which were threaded and glued. Lugs were not universal as you seem to have mis-remembered. The alternatives were not always an improvement- some of the larger sized Alans and Vitus's didn't last long in race conditions. TIG welded frames vary in quality, as they did back in the 80's. I own both a new and an 80's TIG. I'm not a Luddite but I don't share your faith in machines and modern workmanship in respect of bikes.

I'm glad you agree that basic geometry is unchanged. Any deviations from these fixed physical requirements are either likely to lead to rider injury or underperformance. Compact geometry looks nice on Mountain bikes, IMO and may or may not save a little weight. TT bikes have aerodynamic advantages, which were developed for the most part in the 80's.

A lot of the tubing improvements you mention are 80's developments as well. I think their wider dissemination amongst mid-range machines is laudable but not always evident. Some of these ideas have more exclusivity value than practical benefit.

On the subject of practicality, we really should return to Phatty's original point. Doesn't it really matter what he as an individual likes, needs, is used to? What does he want from a frame, how does he ride and in what conditions- weather, road, race (if, and what type)?

You may be comfortable on anything, and like a very stiff ride, only race on a well-surfaced road circuit and be gentle on equipment. My requirements might be the exact opposite of yours, given my age, medical history, preferences and the uses the bike will be put to. I know that mass-produced, mid-market frames sometimes present problems for me and others, that are insoluble- usually around comfort. Your criteria are about weight saving and stiffness, as if these were the only measurements that mattered. For my purposes, comfort and performance are the opposites which I must reconcile, for example in a 600km randonee or a 24 hour time trial. Your analysis, that new always beats old, is counter-intuitive to me; I know I would never complete these kinds of event on a bike designed to your specification of superiority. The truth is that there is more than one true vision of progress and functionality, which you clearly enjoy denying

If I ride more effectively on a bike you consider outmoded, using say, heavier components, that I know won't let me down (he said with fingers crossed)curlier forks than you think efficient- or an old frame I have confidence in, no amount of data, engineer speak or dismissive discourse will alter the timekeeper's judgement.

I wonder if you think the 1970's Flying Scot frame I was given for free is Pimpy? I completed Paris-Brest-Paris on it 8 years ago. The variety of bikes evident at such gatherings suggests your view of efficiency is a truncated one........

Too technical for me huh? Too bad I'm a NASA rocket scientist.

The question was about frames not components. But do you really need 10 cogs? The world record 1 hour time trail was done on a fixed (1 cog). STI is nice, but certainly not necessary and also heavier than DT levers.

I also believe I mentioned better metals and tubesets.

GRP-graphite reinforced plastic (aka Carbon fiber)--not yet an established technology. Likes to delaminate unpredicably. I've personally owned two plastic bikes and both delaminated and failed.

Dave

It helps in holding the wheels, seat and handlebars together. In my opinion, you're going to need one if you're interested in any kind of serious cycling.

Well... then how do you explain your avatar?

It's a mono-cock! That's gotta hurt!

I'm just glad I'm not really the guy in the avatar. That back wheel's gotta be hurting.

For a rocket scientist you're remarkably blinded to a few discrepancies in your post.

The world hour record was conducted on a velodrome ie an indoor or outdoor track which mimicks a flat road. I'd like to see the record holder ride that bike up and down hills and mountains all day long. What is the relevance of your statement?

Also your comment on GRP (which is actually an acronym used for Glass Reinforced Polyester - but thats just me being pedantic) relaminating regularly is an interesting one. Now being a Mechanical Engineer myself and also being involved in the non air breathing aerospace field for a number of yrs before a career change, I know that composites arelimited in their application.
However delamination of modern CF frames is almost unheard of.
Yes they did happen to earlier frames Ie around the 80's early 90's but construction in this material has advanced quite remarkably through implementationo of Formula 1 know how.

Flaneur:

I confess that my point of view does not take rider preference into account. My answers are based on purely technical grounds. Delving into rider preference becomes a very personal issue and perhaps using old tech frames is working for you but that does not mean that you would not perform better on a modern frame designed with your requirements in mind. You claim it won't be different and I stick to my guns that it will. However if you believe that you won't perform on a modern bike then I'm afraid that modern construction has already lost with you on it. After all, the nitty gritty about any sport is about attitude and will to suceed.

I am unemotional about technology, it's somethng I have to deal with and evaluate almost daily. So perhaps I see the merits of the technology and believe that it is faster. You on the other are coming from a different perspective, the "If it ain't broke then don't fix it" train of thought. And theres nothing wrong with that. However dismissing advances in quality achieved through application of technology is a notion that I cannot subscribe to.

IMO, good quality frames are now available at lower price points than they were 15 yrs ago. and that is an advance.
I will concede that some may feel that their old frames will outperform a modern frame. I beg to differ.

With geometry being suimilar, I believe that you can now find a frame that will help you perform better than you did on your old bike, simply because it is lighter, stiffer (at the BB) and possibly more compliant than your old bike. Aren't those the criteria that all frame designers are stiving to improve??

also I can understand thatyou don;t appreciate my comments, but fact of the matter is, Old steel is not real, it's just old steel. Today the only thing thats real is how the end product feels and fits. It couldbe made from any material, DCRER for instance - Thats Dish cloth reinforced Epoxy Resin for our resident rocket scientist....

I was seriously hoping when I found this seemingly content happy BB, that I would be able to avoid the pomposity, egotism and sheer elitism of other online "communities" that I've frequented.

I see that this one is no different, for that I"m sorry.

That being said, here's my opinion...

Do you like your present frame? Does it fail you in some way? I doubt that it does. It would be quite human of you to WANT a new frame, but if you questioned yourself, you may find that it's not a NEED.

I've found that pretty much a bike is a bike, whether it be steel, carbon, aluminum or yes, even Ti. Fit is a much more important matter than frame material. Fit gives you the proper proportion of performance and comfort. Fit is the deciding factor between suffering through a 10 mile ride or enjoying a century. Fit can make a 100 dollar garage sale special feel like a 5000 dollar custom

As far as modern components go. I work on bikes for a living. I'd rather rebuild from the ground up 10 bikes from the 70s, than deal with telling 1 pissed off customer that no, the Almighty Shimano won't warranty his third set of busted STIs.

I own a couple of bikes with "modern" conveniences. I love my vintage equipment. I'll take old time reliability.