Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 17568356)

I don't think that for most riders, there is much difference between steel, carbon or Ti in terms of performance or ride. The best thing about steel is that it is pretty easy to get a custom frame made that fits you perfectly. A perfectly fit bicycle is going to ride great and you have plenty of ways to adjust the ride with tires, wheels, seats, handlebars that can make a huge difference.

FWIW, I had a Gunnar Crosshairs frame made a while ago and Gunnar made the thing super stiff to the point where I wished I hadn't pushed the stiff issue so hard. This, after my last steel bike, a late '80's Basso racing frame was pretty much a noodle but with an absolutely beautiful ride and great performance. So stiff or a noodle are just characteristics of how the frame was designed, not of the material so much.

Incidentally, after seeing lots of miles, there isn't a spot of rust on that bike and we live in Minnesota where salt on the roads in the early season is not all unusual and it can be quite humid in the summer. These bikes will outlive me.

I'm having a custom stainless frame built for me that will be done this month. I have an unusual fit problem with shortish arms, a long torso and long legs. Makes for a difficult fit on most bikes. This one will fit perfectly. This will be an Ultegra Di2 bike on a modern compact geometry frame in a 56cm size will come in at about 16.25 lbs built up ready to ride with nice, but not exotic components. The frame weight is 1660g. I'm pretty sure this bike is going to have exactly the ride quality I'm looking for and I can hardly wait to get it out on the road next month some time.


J.

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 17568374)

If you are aware of the design the builder will be using for you, it might be instructive to describe how they are coping with your dimensional peculiarities. I'm wondering, for example, whether one builds a bike differently for long torso/short arms than for short torso/long arms, assuming the leg lengths are the same in both cases. Any information you can share with us?

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 17568585)

There really doesn't seem to be any one thing. What happens is that one issue impacts all the others - everything ties together. Steel lends itself well to accommodating personal differences.

My previous bike had been a cf frame with a short BB drop of 67mm, short chain stays and a trail measurement that made it uber quick - even aggressive geometry for a crit bike. They quick handling took a lot of rider input to keep it going where I wanted it to go and adds to fatigue in long rides. Most of my riding is longer rides and I wanted this to be a performance ride but all day long.

On the old bike, because of the torso length and the leg length, I wound up with a shorter stem than I wanted and a longer top tube on this stock frame I had. Shortening the top tube, lengthening the stem back to where it should be and dropping the bottom bracket to a drop of about 75mm with slightly longer chain stays should give me the comfort and ride quality I was looking for - pretty much into traditional "stage race"/sportif frame geometry category. The modern compact geometry gives the stiffness and the reasonable frame weight. A slightly longer head tube accommodates a chronic neck issue. The fork will be an Enve 2.0 to dampen road buzz and to keep weight down. With a stainless fork, the bike would have been around 17 lbs.

J.

Originally Posted by Lazyass (Post 17568257)

For a couple of years Raleigh had the Record Ace, 2010-2012 I think. It was lugged Reynolds 520 with Ultegra and Brooks saddle. Even the fork was lugged steel. I see their 2015 steel bikes are all tig welded, even the Record Ace and they went with a relaxed geometry. Kind of sad.

2010 Record Ace

http://urbanvelo.org/wordpress/wp-co...09_day2_22.jpg

Originally Posted by bbattle (Post 17568693)

While I prefer the look of lugged bikes, there's nothing wrong with TIG welded frames.

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 17568356)

I'm having a custom stainless frame built for me that will be done this month.
J.

Originally Posted by Lazyass (Post 17568736)

I know, I've had them. But look at the 2010 compared to this. Now it's more of a comfort bike with a sloping top tube.

http://www.bikemastertool.com/media/...jpg?1409078461

http://archive.raleighusa.com/wp-con...tallic-LRG.jpg

Originally Posted by Eljot (Post 17568161)

The bikes from that picture gallery are all built by one guy who has a shop in Cologne.

Originally Posted by Scooper (Post 17568753)

John, would you mind telling us who the builder is? Since you're in Minnesota, I'm guessing maybe Dave Anderson?

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 17569293)

Good guess. It is Dave Anderson. Really happy with his craftsmanship; working with him is a joy.

Cant wait to get this bike built and take it for a spin.

J.

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 17568356)

I don't think that for most riders, there is much difference between steel, carbon or Ti in terms of performance or ride. The best thing about steel is that it is pretty easy to get a custom frame made that fits you perfectly.

Originally Posted by redfooj (Post 17569704)

... it is much easier to create custom carbon because one is not limited to preformed tubes. It can take on any shape and layup

Originally Posted by JohnJ80 (Post 17568356)

I'm having a custom stainless frame built for me that will be done this month. I have an unusual fit problem with shortish arms, a long torso and long legs. Makes for a difficult fit on most bikes. This one will fit perfectly. This will be an Ultegra Di2 bike on a modern compact geometry frame in a 56cm size will come in at about 16.25 lbs built up ready to ride with nice, but not exotic components. The frame weight is 1660g. I'm pretty sure this bike is going to have exactly the ride quality I'm looking for and I can hardly wait to get it out on the road next month some time.

Originally Posted by Stucky (Post 17569227)

So, when you say built, you're talking about a dude who just puts parts on an existing frame; as opposed to someone building you a custom frame?

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker (Post 17569731)

Wut? Most custom carbon is a glued tube and lug cluster construction. The tubes are purchased from a supplier much like steel tubes are. Some custom carbon is made of similar tubes that are joined by wrapping them at the ends with prepreg strips. Custom monocoque layups are very unusual, essentially unheard of, due to the cost of the molds needed to make them. Custom tube are more feasible, but still not the norm. There are exceptions to everything, but saying it is easier to get custom carbon isn't accurate. Depending upon the style of construction, like say the prepreg wrapped tube joints, a custom carbon bike and a custom steel bike would be about equally available. But for the most part custom in that case would refer to size/geometry. Ride could also be customized by the choice of tubes (weights, stiffness, gauge, etc.), but once again bikes from either material would not be truly custom in sense of mm-by-mm control of the mechanical properties.

Originally Posted by redfooj (Post 17569704)

Agree with the first statement. But the second - it is much easier to create custom carbon because one is not limited to preformed tubes. It can take on any shape and layup

Originally Posted by redfooj (Post 17569908)

carbon layup is additive. from a base mould, they can further thicken the tubing with layup at almost any portion by almost any arbitrary amount. or they can do external wrap like e.g. BB cluster to further reinforce that area.

one cant simply "add material" to steel tubesets. one is limited to the series of gauges and butting profiles provided by the manufacturer.

in a general sense, both follow a template, but also in a general sense i argue cf provides a larger degree of freedom

Originally Posted by redfooj (Post 17569908)

one cant simply "add material" to steel tubesets. one is limited to the series of gauges and butting profiles provided by the manufacturer.

Originally Posted by redfooj (Post 17569908)

carbon layup is additive. from a base mould, they can further thicken the tubing with layup at almost any portion by almost any arbitrary amount. or they can do external wrap like e.g. BB cluster to further reinforce that area.

one cant simply "add material" to steel tubesets. one is limited to the series of gauges and butting profiles provided by the manufacturer.

in a general sense, both follow a template, but also in a general sense i argue cf provides a larger degree of freedom

Originally Posted by Eljot (Post 17569756)

Yeah, he assembles bikes would probably be the right term. I just went to that shop once and the guy seems to be a stoner with an attitude.
That's why I prefer a retired pro cyclist who owns an old school conservative bike shop rather than these typical hipster bike shops.

Originally Posted by Scooper (Post 17570025)

Generally speaking, "custom" includes tubing lengths and frame angles "made to measure" for a specific rider. In that sense, custom is difficult or impossible to do with fixed molds.

That's why most custom carbon frames are built as rpenmanparkers says. Adding material to beef up CF frames in certain areas is an advantage over steel, but hardly meets the generally accepted definition of "custom."

Originally Posted by JohnDThompson (Post 17570073)

But one can mix and match different gauge and diameter tubes from various tube sets and/or manufacturers to achieve a desired result. And geometry (tube lengths, angles, etc.) and accessories (brake and rack mounts, etc.) can also be varied to meet specific needs in a manner that can be difficult to do with a CF mold.

Originally Posted by Scooper (Post 17569364)

Besides being one of the most talented builders around and having lots of experience with stainless, he's also a helluva nice guy.

Great choice!