How many on the 41 still like steel bikes???
05-15-15, 06:55 AM
#51
meh
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hopkins, MN
Posts: 4,704
Bikes: 23 Cutthroat, 21 CoMotion Java; 21 Bianchi Infinito; 15 Surly Pugsley; 11 Globe Daily; 09 Kona Dew Drop; 96 Mondonico
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1111 Post(s)
Liked 1,013 Times
in
519 Posts
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?
Last edited by Hypno Toad; 05-15-15 at 07:00 AM.
05-15-15, 07:32 AM
#52
meh
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hopkins, MN
Posts: 4,704
Bikes: 23 Cutthroat, 21 CoMotion Java; 21 Bianchi Infinito; 15 Surly Pugsley; 11 Globe Daily; 09 Kona Dew Drop; 96 Mondonico
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1111 Post(s)
Liked 1,013 Times
in
519 Posts
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.
05-15-15, 08:02 AM
#53
Thread Killer
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,455
Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3153 Post(s)
Liked 1,717 Times
in
1,036 Posts
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.
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.
05-15-15, 08:31 AM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
3 Posts
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
05-15-15, 08:49 AM
#55
Senior Member
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.
05-15-15, 09:02 AM
#56
well hello there
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Point Loma, CA
Posts: 15,430
Bikes: Bill Holland (Road-Ti), Fuji Roubaix Pro (back-up), Bike Friday (folder), Co-Motion (tandem) & Trek 750 (hybrid)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 503 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
206 Posts
__________________
.
.
Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.
.
.
Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.
05-15-15, 09:28 AM
#57
Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
05-15-15, 09:51 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
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.
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.
05-15-15, 09:59 AM
#59
Senior Member
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?
05-15-15, 10:04 AM
#61
Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 36
Bikes: Colnago Master Olympic, Masi Gran Criterium, Diamondback Century
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
05-15-15, 10:16 AM
#62
Señor Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,066
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 649 Post(s)
Liked 293 Times
in
216 Posts
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.
05-15-15, 10:16 AM
#63
Senior Member
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.
I also take exception to the notion of steel being from a "bygone" era. Simply not true.
J.
05-15-15, 10:44 AM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
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.
Last edited by rpenmanparker; 05-16-15 at 06:04 AM.
05-15-15, 11:10 AM
#65
GATC
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:
As far as fancier in steel, what I might most like is internal cable routing
As far as fancier in steel, what I might most like is internal cable routing
05-15-15, 11:15 AM
#66
Uber Goober
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.
__________________
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
"be careful this rando stuff is addictive and dan's the 'pusher'."
05-15-15, 11:19 AM
#67
Senior Member
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.
05-15-15, 11:27 AM
#68
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
05-15-15, 11:34 AM
#69
Portland Fred
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.
05-15-15, 12:43 PM
#70
Old Fart
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Bumpkinsville
Posts: 3,348
Bikes: '97 Klein Quantum '16 Gravity Knockout
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
2 Posts
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 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.
05-15-15, 12:48 PM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
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
86 Gazelle Champion Mondial
90 Specialized Rock Hopper
12 On-One Pompino SSCX
05-15-15, 02:24 PM
#72
Jet Jockey
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...
Not to say I don't love my modern race bike just as much, but if forced to choose...
__________________
Good night...and good luck
Good night...and good luck
05-15-15, 02:47 PM
#73
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 33,006
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92
Mentioned: 325 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11975 Post(s)
Liked 6,655 Times
in
3,486 Posts
Took the words right out of my mouth.
__________________
See, this is why we can't have nice things. - - smarkinson
Where else but the internet can a bunch of cyclists go and be the tough guy? - - jdon
05-15-15, 03:00 PM
#74
Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 36
Bikes: Colnago Master Olympic, Masi Gran Criterium, Diamondback Century
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
05-15-15, 03:12 PM
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,040
Bikes: S-Works Tarmac, Nashbar CX, Trek 2200 trainer bike, Salsa Casseroll commuter, old school FS MTB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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.
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.