The April Fools emails now start rolling in close to midnight on March 31st turning this once clever "holiday" into a bit of a predictable snoozer. But Trek, in the midst of celebrating their 50th Anniversary, decided to skip your inbox and instead post a "Steel is Real" video on LinkedIn (and Facebook/TikTok) that should make each and every one of us beam with pride. Have a watch.*

*Sorry, I can't find a way to embed the video below as it doesn't appear to be hosted on YouTube or other such video hosting channel.

Either a fun April Fool, or a foreshadowing of a reintroduction of Trek steel, like the iconic 520 touring bike. But I think a clue is the "125% efficiency", uh, usually max is 100% efficiency in such a test. But in reality, good quality high strength steel, designed for the tubes, has good ride quality, is durable and not fragile like thin carbon, is repairable, and is easily recycled (unlike carbon in resin).

thanks, that settles it: steel IS real and always will be; at least in my garage.

there was a post about larger tires wearing away carbon destroying bicycles, doesn't happen with steel if mem serves. they said to just keep carbon away from muddy areas and we will be ok. me thinks to just keep it out of my life and life will be better.

This was a fun video. I think it would be great to see the difference in key metrics to see how far we've come where it matters in, say, a racing application, and where steel still does well. It's at least a very good thing that they don't measure braking performance. At least old Campy never howled like a wounded goose...

Carbon vs steel: Carbon is lighter, can be made more aero. *Possibly* better ride, by making the frame torsionally stiff, but softer in longitudinal flex. We know that small-tube steel can be made to ride well, but it can be more noodly in hard climbing and sprints, which matters in racing. My aluminum Cannondale 3.0 crit was notably stiff in torsion (I think best ever until that point) but also rode hard, but that may also have been due to the steep angles and short wheelbase. Some have said newer aluminum 'Dales ride well, but the aluminum has gotten very thin, and decades-durability can be an issue. I think steel has had a resurgence due to to that. Titanium was supposed to be the perfect compromise, midpoint in density between aluminum and steel, but high fatigue strength, and the relative price of Ti has come down. So from my view:
- I stay away from carbon due to its known fragility in frame hits. But I don't race.
- Not planning to get another aluminum road bike. I have a couple aluminum frame 700c hybrids suitable for touring or townies, which is a good application.
- I like my 4130 steel 20" folder.
- I wouldn't mind a titanium frame if well built and good price. However, if touring in remote areas, heck, even near a city, titanium welding repair might be difficult to find, versus steel or aluminum. Another mark against carbon.

This materials debate is effectively never ending and realistically being settled. Using the same talking points for the past 30+ years is pointless as technology is not static and Carbon has proven to be the dominant material due to its superior performance and reliability.

My question is where would you tour that would require actualization of the myth of field welding of a bicycle as your option to continue. The idea of field welding aluminum bicycle frame in some remote location is not realistic in any form. Steel is more likely possible but in reality much better options exist. Carbon repair is both reliable and accessible and can even be self performed without extensive training and materials.

Regarding titanium frames, Lynskey regularly has sales with numerous frames available for under $1000.

Yes, the question is not static. Carbon is much more widely used now, but, its advantage is its high strength and stiffness with very light weight, but that is due to thin wall thickness, and that makes it fragile to hits normal to the surface, and not in the intended stress direction.

Steel was always the standard for repairability in third-world touring, either gas welding or brazing with a torch. Aluminum welding has become more widespread in general, but I don't know about third world.

Carbon repair... I suppose it can be patched as easily as fiberglass, though I don't know about any bonding issues if the resin is epoxy, instead of polyester resin like I have patched on 'glass boats. Small cracks in fiberglass, above the waterline, can be patched at sea. Big cracks no, which is why Bernard Moitessier chose steel hull for his circumnavigations, despite it being a race and steel being slower. Steel has superior toughness to many other materials, and could be repaired in any port in the 1960s.

Titanium, yes, it has wonderfully become lower cost, and more widely used, though I would prefer a bike design and "scantlings", to borrow a sailboat term, that has been well tested, and not someone sketching up a custom design and a supplier in China welding it up and mailing it, although I suppose that is no different from custom steel framebuilders in the past, it relies upon the experience of the framebuilder in knowing the right sizes and thicknesses to use.

Rack repair is more commonly needed, and from what I have seen, premium and expensive, steel racks seem to still rein by world tourers.