wow, unbelievable failure. steel can be an adjective.

Correct you are...:thumb:

I didn't know that...so there is another option. Would this be an entire bike or a box of parts? A box of parts would work find for me, but I'm not sure the OP would be up for that.

Entire bike. Check out his site http://www.curtlo.com/build_bike.html.

Ride safe.

There's no reason why it would only work with adjectives. For example, I could say "Humorous, insightful, Seth Godin... pick any two." if I wanted to imply that Seth Godin is not capable of being humorous and insightful at the same time.

It's (obviously) a riff on the "strong, light, cheap" saying attributed to Keith Bontrager, which is related to the service workers' saying: "quick, good, cheap, pick any two."

The point is that a super-light steel frame will be about the weight of a CAAD3 and (based on fatigue testing) will not be very durable.

While I wouldn't want to argue with a "Certified Bicycle Expert" I do want to point out that you keep dragging out the same single "test" which was done 12 years ago. In addition the test was not done with the steel I am referring to as it wasn't on the market at that time.

Steel, aluminum, carbon, bamboo, pvc whatever floats your boat.

Peace

Fullforce, if you've got some cash, go down to your local bike shop and pick out a pretty bike. I wouldn't make crashing a factor in choosing a bike. Just take care of your investment.

I seriously considered buying a used Waterford R33 frame that had 15,000 miles on it. In the end, the guy just wanted too much for it, but I did think about it. That's an S3 frame and Waterford claims to have other frames with 100k miles on them.

In the end, I don't think frame endurance properties are really much of a concern regardless of the material. They're all built to last for a long, long time. If they weren't, liability claims alone would run the manufacturers out of business.

A steel frame is not the lightest option. An all carbon frame will be lighter. A frame built of S3 will weigh about the same as my Cannondale Six13 which is carbon and aluminum. Do you really think that _anyone_ on this board will be severly limited by a frame that weighs an extra 300-400 grams? C'mon, get real.

1) The "bike expert" label is a joke. It's based on a recent thread here about recognizing "experts".

2) Perhaps this test ("test"?) is old, but is there a newer test you have results from? Do the boutique builders making today's ultralight steel frames even do any fatigue testing?

3) Is there a valid reason to think that the fatigue behavior of newer steels, built thinner, is going to be better than the older steels in this test?


The original poster was really concerned about crashworthiness, rather than durability. I don't know of any tests of crashworthiness...

I would like to meet the test rider/journalist who signs up to write the "crash worthiness" buyers guide article in whatever magazine chooses to publish such an article. This would truly be a selfless individual worthy of some sort of honor.

That being said; I think if someone is going into a road bike purchasing decision, and "crash worthiness" is one of the criteria, remind me not to have this individual join my local group ride.

Only a dummy would take that assignment!

Well, I agree & disagree with you. Because of age, fitness, commitments, etc... some of us lack the time to ride more than 45 minutes a day. I am currently one of those people. However, I RARELY miss a day, and I always go ALL OUT.

All of the suggestions that everyone is making are truly fantastic. I feel as though my fears concerning crash worthiness have been answered. I do love steel, and I guess I gave a wide ranging budget. Cheaper is generally better of course, but another important question I have is: in a road bike, at what price point does the law of diminishing returns apply? I will not be racing anyone but myself, but I still want to go as fast as I can. I love speed! I've been kicking butt for three years now, and I want to go faster than my hybrid can go.

the standard answer given by just about anyone is 'whatever i paid for my bike is the top of the diminishing returns chart'. There is a thread somewhere where this was discussed ad naseum. I really mean that, it was obnoxious. I think the consensus (if you could call it that) was on the order of $2k, but everybody is different.

Finally an opportunity to use my B.A. in Economics....

The law of diminishing returns applies always, and for all goods.

Your question should be "when does an additional dollar of cost not result in an additional dollar's worth of utility?"

Now I can answer that question...but before I do, was it a road bike you were referring to? Was it for racing or training or recreation? And in what part of the world do you live in? And.....

All my bikes are steel ... except my Ti Marinoni ... which is my newest bike, so I can't comment on its longevity!

That is the question we don't speak of.

A Nashbar Alu-C frame is something like $150. If you build it up with bar end shifters and go cheap, you'll probably be into it for about $800. If you go used and keep your eyes open for deals, you can bring that down to probably $5-600. The honest truth of the matter is that it will do damn near anything your super whatever $10,000 bike can do. There will undoubtedly be minor complains here and there about this or that. Maybe it's not quite as comfortable or quite as this or that as the high zoot model. Whatever. A good rider can still haul the freakin' mail on it. It'll be all the bike you need to get to the pointy end of a club ride if you've got the legs for it.

There was one thing that I recommended spending money on, and that was to get away from Sora shifters. I have them on my cross bike and don't particularly care for their shifting ergonomics. Bar ends would be cheaper and better. I also think it's a good idea to spend enough money to get a good saddle. If you know a model that works for you, camp out on Ebay.

For 45 minutes a day, you can ride pretty much anything. A rough ride or bad saddle doesn't really show up in the amount of time. It's only when you're riding 3 hours or so at a time that the little issues start wearing on you. Probably the thing for you is to get something that you're happy with. Compared to a hybrid, a real road bike is gonna blow your doors off in terms of speed. It'll be a little rougher ride than you're used to, but you'll cover more ground than before.

So, FB, not to put words in your mouth, but a CAAD 9 - 5 would likely be a good choice for me? Or a Synapse? Around $1500?

I'm beginning to feel that aluminum is light, durable, stiff, and comfortable in the hands of Cannondale. What about the safety of carbon forks on an otherwise aluminum bike?

Any other bikes to consider around $1500?

The only problems I've ever seen with carbon forks involve squirrels or cars. Don't worry about the fork.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/6/760...f5e81e4f93.jpg

No one who owns the performance brand scattante's complains about them. you lose the bling, but if you buy them during a sale, they're a pretty great bang-for-the-buck bike

Hey, smarty pants, how do you define what a "dollar's worth of utility" is?

The CAAD 9-5 is a great bike. I think in terms of the general BF approval, you'd be hard pressed to match it. It does have a pretty aggressive geometry, though (same as my C'dale Six13, which I love). I don't know anything about you other than you like to ride hard for short periods of time and you've been on a hybrid for a long time. Any road bike is going to be a big change in terms of your positioning on the bike, the CAAD moreso than the Synapse.

People often shy away from all aluminum bikes because of ride quality. That is pretty much unwarranted with today's AL bikes. A 1985 Cannondale is a different matter. Those bikes would put a bunch of sting through the frame. Both of these bikes will ride nice. This is why I don't hesitate to recommend an AL bike over a carbon one of the same design if budget is at all an issue.

The Synapse will be a little smoother and your positioning will be a little more upright. If you have any back or neck flexibility issues, this will make things more comfortable. If you don't, it won't particularly matter. You'll probably run a little bigger tire on the Synapse (a 25c vs. a 23c, maybe), which will again make it ride rough pavement a little nicer. The weight of the two will be very close, with the nod going to the CAAD. The speed of the two will be very close, again with the nod going to the CAAD (as the more aggressive seating position will be slightly more aerodynamic). Keep in mind, we're splitting hairs on most of this.

Go to a store that has both, and take some test rides. Make sure they adjust both bikes so that the fit is reasonable. Set tire pressures yourself with their pump to 110 psi (a trick to push a customer in a certain direction is to juggle tire pressures to make one bike feel particularly rough and another particularly smooth). Ride the bikes as much as they let you. Around the parking lot isn't enough. You need to at least go around the block a couple times. You wouldn't test drive a car in a parking lot. Ultimately, go with what you feel is the best overall compromise for your intended use.

Good Luck and let us know how it turns out!

The funny thing is that people were saying the same thing ten years ago. Maybe more, Google's USENET archive only goes back so far...

They weren't saying that in the late 80's. Those bikes honestly rode pretty stinkin' rough. Of course we didn't have message boards to complain about them. The other side is that the AL bike's competition is the 80's was really nice riding (even by today's standards) steel bikes. It was a hard act to follow.

Here are a couple that come to mind:

Trek Madone 4.5 (not-OCLV, but TCT carbon which is slightly heavier and made in Taiwan, if that is a concern)

Specialized Tarmac/Roubaix

Giant TCR

Cannondale Six Carbon

Cannondale SystemSix (Carbon/Aluminum)

Cannondale CAAD-9

Giant OCR-C2/1

Scott CR-1 Pro

Trek Pilot 5.0

Kuota Kebel (R&A sells this)

Felt F75

I rear ended a car a couple years ago (mostly my fault) riding my '72 Gitane Tour De France. The fork blades bent back 12", the steer tube arched, the headset lugs ovalized and the downtube developed a little bow to it. I bought a stronger fork, epoxied the headset cups into the headset and rode that bike another ten thousand miles. I don't think a 35 year old aluminum or carbon fiber bike could have done that.

Funny enough, last year I was racing that same bike and hit a curb going 25mph. This time the fork held and the down tube buckled, shifting the wheel back 6". I managed to stay upright and finish the race while watching out for a serious case of toe-overlap. That was the end of that frame but I've been totally sold on the amazing survivability of steel since.

When my aluminum Gary Fisher frame broke it was quick and catastrophic. Its no fun trying to ride a bike home when the bottom bracket has snapped away from the down and seat tubes at the welds. I have no experience with carbon fiber.