"... by gone era"? Really?!?

I got this 1996 Mondonico last fall. I spent the spring tuning it up (it'd been in storage), this bike is as fast as my Felt. If you're into Strava and VeloViewer... Here are some nerd stats to back up my feelings:

Mondonico:
VV score 98.40 & 26 PR based on first 162 miles.
Felt:
VV score 98.34 & 242 PR based on 1,560 miles.

Considering the Mondonico has ~10% of the miles and ~10% of the PRs, I'd say that 'Steel is REAL!'. Some of the Mondonico miles were late last fall on 20 year old tires and brakes (not aggressive riding), I got it all finished up late last month. I'm planning to get some longer ride on the Mondonico in the next few weeks, but last couple weeks have been focused on my gravel grinder getting ready for the Almanzo 100.

Writing off steel as 'old' is a mistake.

Edit... after thought: Have you ever ridden a quality steel frame bike?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-J...113441_920.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Ox...=w1081-h721-no

I feel comfortable about saying steel out numbers (or is darn close to) AL bikes in Minneapolis. Partly, because we have Surly right here, and All City, and not to mention the love of 70's and 80's bikes in this town.

Yeah, the conflation of "steel" with "old," "vintage," and the like is stupid, and reveals the ignorance of those who do it.

Modern steel-- the modern modifying the construction of the bike, not the alloy of steel-- offers quite a bit beyond vintage steel in terms of performance potential. Through the combination of modern design principles (especially compact design) and the shaped, oversize tubes available today, modern steel bikes can be stiffer, more responsive and better handling than their predecessors, right up through the '90s.

There are, of course, current steel frames that are nothing more than throwbacks to the principles, materials, and constructions of the past, but even use of Aheadsets/stems/OS bars over quill stems and vintage 25.4mm bars offer handling advantages to throwback frames. These are the kind nds of bikes most often seen coming from boutique builders, though there are certainly boutique builders making fully modern frames.

Speaking of componentry, advances in other areas beyond the stem also work to give modern bikes that jump in performance, whether it's wide carbon forks, stiffer cranks, outboard bottom bracket bearings, or integrated shifting, and when comparing a modern bike with a period-correct, vintage specimen, there's no mistaking the advances.

None of which is to say that vintage steel doesn't ride nicely, handle well, or deliver great pleasure; I know that they do, in fact. Yet and predictably, the gap between modern carbon and vintage steel is not only greater than the gap was between vintage carbon and vintage steel, but the gap between the old and new steel bikes is just as profound as the basic materials gap.

So my point is that in the same way no one benchmarks "carbon" off a Trek 2500 (or even an Aegis monocoque/Trek 5000), "steel" should not be benchmarked off 20 to 30 year old steel frames. Times have changed, and that even people who consider themselves fans of steel can't come to grips with, nor accurately express the distinctions, is really tragic.

I'm riding my 89 Centurion Ironman as my primary and only bike. Upgraded to 11 speed 105. I've had two CAAD and a carbon TCR but keep coming back to steel. I like the look and feel and as Strava proves any performance increase from the more expensive, modern, lightweight bikes is negligible

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=451487

Built this one recently with Campy Athena 11 speed, carbon tubs with Veloflex tires and a nice Ti seatpost. This is more of my ride-during-the-week bike; I use my carbon bike for fast rides. But they are both very nice in their own way.

I have two steel race bikes, one road, one cyclocross. I didn't set out to find steel bikes, but the bikes I wanted are steel. And there's nothing bygone about them - the oldest one was made in 2011. I would say odds are that my next road bike will not be steel, not because I have a problem with it but because I would like a lighter bike. Probably a very solid chance that my next cross bike will be steel, but who knows?

I agree totally. My road bike feels a lot more like the 2004 S-Works E5 I had before than any of the old steel bikes I've ridden. It has shaped tubes, a carbon fork, modern everything. All the stiffness you could want. It's nothing special in terms of the ride, it is comfortable enough, but it is a race bike. Steel doesn't really enter into that. The cross bike is a little different - much more old school, a lot smoother and whippier. But still a modern bike with a carbon fork and integrated headset. A much more traditional feel, but it still handles great on a cyclocross course. A good bike is a good bike.

OMG, we totally agree! There is no rationale for saying "steel is real" and then limiting your definition to only the vintage. There is a reason for doing that; it is purely subjective aesthetics, but that isn't a rationale.

Some of it is snobbery of the folks who are into vintage steel. I remember recently seeing in some thread that a guy was saying that you "can't have carbon forks on a steel bike!" WTF not?

Great bike sced!

I've owned a Bridgestone 500 and a Lotus Legend at different times; really enjoyed them both. Not racing frames but comfortable as you could get IMO for a long ride. Hard to beat the ride quality of a good steel frame.http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=451495http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=451496

Aesthetically I prefer steel bikes, but practically I prefer aluminum or carbon. Steel bikes look better (in my opinion) and many people prefer the ride, but I believe lightweight steel frames aren't , generally speaking, as durable as similar weight frames made from other materials. And heavier steel frames are less likely to have the sought-after ride quality as the light ones. I weigh ~240 lbs so the pound or two extra of a steel frame compared to lighter materials doesn't matter to me.

I recently replaced my carbon frame (circa 2007 LeMond) with a custom stainless steel frame from Anderson Custom Bicycles because I have an unusual fit problem. This Ultegra Di2 bike comes in at 16.3lbs and rides like a dream. It's fast (probably mostly related to perfect fit), comfortable and gorgeous to look at. This ain't your father's steel bike, pretty high tech tubing - a combination of Reynolds and KVA stainless.

I also take exception to the notion of steel being from a "bygone" era. Simply not true.

J.

You are surely entitled to your opinion, but mine differs. It is actually quite easy to beat the ride quality of a good steel frame. My Ti and CF bikes do it every day. Unless, of course, you define a "good steel frame" as one that has an unbeatable ride. That would be silly, and besides I don't think such a thing exists. Steel can have a nice ride, but we have moved on. The steel bike I keep is mostly for the sake of nostalgia, not ride superiority.

I am trying to decide if I want something fancier in any material (steel, Al, CF, sure, I'll consider it) but I really like this bike:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=451504

As far as fancier in steel, what I might most like is internal cable routing

I ride a steel bike, not sure if that means I "like" steel bikes or just ride one. Same with cars, I drive a steel car, but I haven't driven any other kind to compare, so not sure what it means. My Sojourn, the tandem, the Bike Friday and the Worksman are all steel. The crappy Ozone bike that was stolen was aluminum, though.

Low to midrange steel frames of that vintage don't ride particularly well at all, sorry. I've ridden my fair share of old bikes in that price range of that quality, and frankly, they're mostly turds compared even to modern aluminum bikes (which don't deserve the harsh ride reputation any more than steel deserves the soft ride reputation). My experience with high-end steel is much more limited, but I can tell you that the only steel frame that has legitimately astonished me with its ride feel has been my Ritchey SwissCross. It truly is remarkably cushy and I adore it. But the downside of steel is that you have to give up some of the torsional stiffness (i.e. cornering precision) to get that kind of compliance. I ride small frames, which helps, and the characteristics of that bike work for me off-road, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned. I love both of my steel bikes, but I'm aware of their weaknesses.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=451508 I love mine....rides awesome.

If I could have only one bike, it would be steel. Mine has a great ride, it's not as much heavier than people think, it holds up to abuse well (bad conditions, falling, not using a torque wrench, etc), and it looks good.

My next bike will likely be steel (a classic DeRosa). I don't currently own a steel bike, but my old aluminum bike rides every bit as good (and probably better) than my '13 Venge.

I also prefer downtube shifters to brifters.

Quill stems are just fine.

The only "modern": things that really matter to me, are alloy wheels, and modern, good-quality flat-resistant tires. And bar tape.

I have three steel bikes, and I like them all just fine:

86 Gazelle Champion Mondial
90 Specialized Rock Hopper
12 On-One Pompino SSCX

Of all my bikes, if I could only keep one it would be my steel Ritchey Breakaway Cross. Rides great, and the "performance" of the frame is 100% dependent on which tires I run. Put 23-25mm slicks on it, and I can hang with the fast club ride anyday. Put 32mm touring rubber on, and it can go on sketchier terrain, or just ride a little more comfortably. Essentially, when I put the wheels and tires from my modern race bike on the frame, I perform exactly the same. Strava numbers and effort hanging with my ride partners is no different.

Not to say I don't love my modern race bike just as much, but if forced to choose...

:thumb: Took the words right out of my mouth.

Never said you couldn't beat the ride quality, just said it wasn't easy to. I also never said that steel was better than Ti, CF or anything else (rpenmanparker). I also did not say they were the best frames, I said they were good frames. If you see them as turds that's fine, but I see them as good; not great but good. In my OPINION those frames were very comfortable (and yes flexy - but they weren't race bikes) regardless of what price range they were in; and in some (not all) cases more comfortable than the higher end Al & CF bikes I rode and raced.
Not everyone is going to agree on this topic because personal preference makes this too subjective. We all have our own opinion.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a former employer who had a 2nd business importing Italian wine. We were discussing the different wines you're "supposed to" pair with different foods. He said that, in general, those pairings were right on the money and go with them if you're in doubt. But the true "correct" wine is really the one that you like the best - pairings be damned.
Anyhoo, I can totally respect your feelings and opinion on the subject. That's what it is an opinion. After 24 years of riding & racing I also have developed my opinions on the subject. Doesn't make me an expert, but does qualify me to have an opinion and not be talked down to about it. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'm sure there's a lot of other cycling-related things we would have no problem seeing eye-to-eye on.

I have:

A steel rando bike that I use for errands and hauling. If I did any type of tour I'd use it too.

An 86 Schwinn super sport with Columbus tubes, every bit as stiff and comfy as my carbon bike.

I'm presently building a soma smoothie with a carbon fork.

Steel is real.