3alarmer

...the road to anarchy is paved with just such sentiment.

himespau 

I really joined this thread to see what can be done with modern alloys and new shaping techniques to see if I found them prettier than nice lugged frames. Most people call 1987 the cutoff for vintage (at least the eroica and some other people do), but 1988 seems too old for vintage. Y2k seems like just yesterday to me, so how about any bikes from the current millenium count as modern. That seem like a good cutoff?

3alarmer

...the shaping thing for steel alloys is a huge difference in use for bike frames. Arguably, the hydroforming techniques that have continued to improve aluminum alloy frame designs, and the obvious advantages of being able to custom mold and layup a CF bike frame make them more easily tuned for ride characteristics. It's just a guess on my part, but besides weight savings, that's another reason I see so many CF forks on the OS steel tubeset frames.

I don't see that happening in steel unless the makers envision some cash payback down the line. AS we see from the stainless Reynolds, custom forming steel tubing is more resistant to current production techniques than either of those materials.

I'm really OK with any definition, just think maybe having one might make it easier to talk about them.

Maelochs

I think we need to appoint one poster to make case-by-case decisions on which bikes meet the standard. I would nominate 3alarmer .

rpenmanparker 

You know the 455 is tough stuff when that is the quandary.

3alarmer

...thank you. I sense mocking, but when all is said and done, I believe you have stumbled upon the best course of action by far. The alternative, simply allowing the various bozos like you to call the shots on stuff like this, will only lead to hard feelings, words thrown about that cannot be recalled regretfully later, and the continuing lack of standards so prevalent in the 21st Century.

It's so entertaining to have stalkers on the BF. I hope to see much more of you. You just seem to understand me so well.

dr_lha

OK, first bike for this test: Pashley Stainless Sprinter. Made from Columbus XCr stainless steel, with old school Pashley styling. Columbus carbon forks and I think a 1 1/8th inch threadless steerer tube. Old school "GB" brand handlebars, which look identical to the ones I had on my 1980s Dawes Lightning.

RollCNY

I have a question for the experienced steel folk:

How does a modern production bike such as a Soma Smoothie, with Tange Prestige tubing, compare ride wise to some of the mid-pack or better tubings of a more vintage era? Not trying to get a comparison to 853, but maybe a Reynolds 725, or one of the Colombus tube sets? My Lotus is Ishiwata tubing, so my guess is a significant difference to Prestige, but no other frame of reference.

Sorry if this is off topic, OP.

dr_lha

2nd bike for the "modern" test: Stainless steel lugged bike, with seatmast, internal cabling and electronic shifting.

Scooper

A year or so ago, right after Reynolds introduced 921, I put together this chart comparing the five then currently available stainless tubesets using manufacturers' literature for standards, physical properties, and chemistry. I haven't updated it yet to reflect KVA's MS3 which replaces MS2.

I found it interesting that 953 is 1.5% - 1.8% titanium (by weight).

rpenmanparker 

Sorry, but I don't like it at all as presented. Especially that stem. Funky bars.

Bandera

Good question.
I still ride my '74 Internat'l, a lugged frame full 531 British design for the serious club rider "back when".
It has fittings for mudguards and will carry the load for a brisk weekend tour on rough surfaces at pace as well as the club time trial with OEM tubular wheels fitted. When I re-configured it for use as a town bike I realized that I wanted another highly versatile design to fill the same role.

I selected Soma's Stanyan frameset, a lugged Prestige/Infinity design with similar geometry and "modern-ish" 130 spacing, 1 1/8" threadless steerer and a full compliment of braze-ons.

How does it ride?
Just fine thanks, lively and predictable even with a Carradice seatbag and full mudguards on a windy day.
With the winter/wet gear removed and a light set of wheels fitted much like my '77 Trek 900 fixed gear, nimble and pleasant on our rough Hill Country roads and a confident descender.

A properly designed and manufactured lugged frameset made with quality lightweight standard sized butted steel tubing from one era will be much like one from a previous era, if the geometry is similar. Modern-ish spacing for 10/11 cogs, a solid feeling 1 1/8" steerer and full braze-ons are worth having for me.

Full disclosure: If I'm going out on really challenging route or in a paceline I select my CF Merckx: Horses for courses......

-Bandera

rpenmanparker 

Give me the 953. In for a penny, in for a pound.

StanSeven

Got to go easy with those radical thoughts. The people in C&V are just thinking about 8 speed now.

dr_lha

Well, it's a prototype, so the stem might have changed. Not sure this bike ever went into production actually.

The bars are really exactly the same as my old school racing bike as a teenager. So much so that you'd call them replicas (the GB brand went defunct many years ago). They certainly work for the nostalgia factor, but I'm not in a rush to turn in my oversized drop bars any time soon.

RollCNY

Is your Stanyan an Infinity fork? Part of why I have been looking at Soma's is that I need to either replace the damaged fork (Tange Mangalloy, IIRC) on the Lotus, or swap parts to a new frame. When I look at 1" forks, I invariably end up in analysis paralysis between Infinity and Prestige forks, or spending less money on a carbon one. It gets into a good money after bad debate, and if I knew that a new Smoothie or ES frame would be a marked difference, I would just plunge.

TimothyH

This bike would be so hot without the white bits. I wouldn't mind seeing more of it though.

rpenmanparker 

Wow, Roll, so many variables. The base case is different steels made into the exact same tubes and frame design. The unequivocal answer to that is identical (very nearly so) behavior and feel. But from there it gets really complicated. When you avail yourself of the weight benefits of stronger steel tubing by lightening the tubes, designs have to change to try to retain the characteristic feel of a steel bike. So you often see thinner tube walls combined with larger tube diameters and changes in butt lengths and placement. Do the designers of tubes and frames get it right? I don't have the experience with a really light steel frame to say. My guess is that most folks don't know what that supposedly special feel of steel is anyway. If the frame rides well, is efficient and comfortable, they think they have gotten the "steel-is-real" result no matter how it really compares to a vintage steel frame, no two of which were ever the same anyway.

I've gotta say that this is what test rides are for.

rpenmanparker 

Thanks for not being offended by my criticism. Or at least appearing not to be.

dr_lha

I only get offended when people criticize the bikes I own. At £6000, I would never own this one!

Jarrett2

Not my cup o' tea.

I'd be all into it if the white was something else.

That's why I've asked multiple folks if it rides like steel or more like Ti. Keep hearing "real steel feel"

They say steel rides like steel, regardless. I've found that to be true with No Name 4130, Reynolds 520, Reynolds 853/725 and True Temper OX Platinum so far. Wondering if 953 is the same or something else.

Bandera

Yes, it rides & handles well as designed.
I thought about converting it to Soma's Prestige fork but I doubt if I'd notice the difference in it's intended role as a winter/wet bike.

-Bandera

rpenmanparker 

I am highly skeptical of that considering that no other material commonly used in bikes behaves that way. We know very well that aluminum made into very thin, very big diameter tubes can be brutal while the CAAD 12 is praised for its ride. Why should steel be any different?

My guess is that folks have no idea what "rides like steel" even means. That would very neatly explain the error.

Scooper

I can just about guarantee that 953 feels the same as any steel alloy from plain 1010 carbon steel to 953 IF the two frames have the same geometry, tubing wall thicknesses, tube diameters, and butting profiles. That's because all the steel alloys used for bicycle frames have virtually the same density and Young's modulus (stiffness), and similar elongation (ductility/brittleness).

The difference, of course, is that tubing made from alloys with higher tensile strength and yield strength can be drawn with thinner walls to reduce weight, so it would be pointless to build a bike with 953 that had the same tubing wall thicknesses, tube diameters, and butting profile as a bike built with 1010. They'd weigh the same and ride the same.

The 953 OS Waterford is the same size and has virtually the same geometry as my 1972 Schwinn P15-9 Paramount which is built with standard diameter Reynolds 531, but the Waterford weighs six pounds less than the Paramount. The 953 tubing has thinner walls, so if the tubing diameters were the same the Waterford would be noticeably flexier (or less stiff); but because the 953 is oversize tubing, I honestly can't tell the difference between the two bikes except that because the Waterford is so much lighter it feels faster (accelerates faster and climbs easier). This outcome is exactly what I was shooting for.

Here is a photo of the two bikes together. The numbers are the tube diameters.

Jarrett2

You were one of the folks that said steel rides like steel.