ph4nt0mf1ng3rs

I know I have already posted a similar post on this forum regarding what steel frame is the best bang for the buck on the market at the moment.
However, as I research all the main frame makers out there, I realize that I may just have to pick and choose a frame blindly and hope that it is better than the others.

My research just is not giving me any indication as to which manufacturer truly is the best choice for a steel track frame.

Now here are the frames that I have looked at (Steel):

Iro Angus
Iro Mark V
Soma Rush
Pake Track
Surly Steamroller
Eigthinch Scrambler
Mercier Kilo TT

I know there are others, however only a few meet the demands that I have: namely geometry. Those are the Soma and the Pake as well as teh Scrambler.

My dilema is with teh tubing. What really distinguishes 4130 from 631? How significant is the difference and does the pricing reflect that significance?

How much weight difference is TO much weight difference?

What Id REALLY like to see on this site eventually, is a shootout similar to car shootouts in Car and Driver magazine and Road and Track. That is, to gather all the Steel framed bicycle frames and test them with equal component groups, and gather all the aluminum framed bicycles and test them against eachother with equal component groups, and rate them much like they do in teh car magazines.

There probably already is one, but I doubt that there is one specific for steel-track bikes of the makes/models that are often talked about on this site.

But in any case, my post is mainly to investigate IN DEPTH, the differences between these frames, positive and negative attributes etc.

wmgreene85

There is no "answer" to this question. All of the above stated frames are cheap, low end frames. The beautiful thing about capitalism is the drive for variation and choice. Pick a frame that fits what YOU need. Bottom line is no one can pick it for you, as I know that is tough to hear.

TejanoTrackie 

(Reynolds) 631 steel is slightly stronger than (AISI) 4130 steel, which means that theoretically tubing made from 631 can be thinner than 4130 to save some weight. In practice, there is little difference, and the main factor is the forming and butting of the tubing and the geometry that determines the quality of the end product.

The frames you have listed vary widely in geometry and design, and you need to narrow your choices down to frames that complement your style of riding and the types componetry you intend to use. The Surly Steamroller is a totally different type of frame from a Kilo TT. Define your needs and goals first.

CharneK

The best frame for you out of those is not going to necessarily be the one that has the best tubing of the set, but the one that fits your body the best. Comfortable shape > better material

cc700

99% of the 'data' you're looking for is going to be subjective. no one here has stress/fatigue testing equipment.

that, and specific frames will be stronger/lighter/more durable than others just because of the quality of the individual tubes used in manufacturing and small variances in the manufacturing process. meaning, you put two steamrollers on a fatigue rig and two soma rushes and the steamrollers may very well have more of a variance between them than one of the rollers and one of the rushes.

bicycles are a very simple machine. there's no 'best' unless you have specific needs- which you allude to but you don't state.

and aside from tire clearance/fit, i really don't think there's too much of a difference between any of those frames. people will cite frame geo and archaic steel comparisons but seriously, the major difference between any of those frames is the paint that comes on them and the look they have.
the other differences can be overcome by throwing your weight with a fraction of a percent more effort.

generally, i think the soma and surly are a little more expensive for a reason(nice steel/durable and room for fat tires) but all the others range from okay to good. the kilo and rush would be my top two, followed by the angus, followed by the surly, followed by the mark v, followed by the scrambler and pake, though i hear the new pake is much nicer. what i am trying to demonstrate is that they're all in the same general quality and value spectrum and differences are subjective.

'shootouts' in car magazines are 1: far less dependent on the person operating the machine and 2: far more expensive and complicated so there's more to judge, and more money put into the testing. wanting something similar for bikes is foolish. get one you like and ride it.

Scrodzilla

ph4nt0mf1ng3rs

^ i like Scrod's photo. Classic.

Well good points guys.
I guess specifically Im looking for something with steep track geo. But I had listed the other frames more to illustrate my idea of shootouts, but as cc700 rightfully put, cars are less dependent upon the person operating the car.

But in any case, I should have made clear the Iro and TT are out becasue the Geo is teh same as the bicycle I have and I dont like the geometry.

And obvoiusly im looking for a steel frame, and not aluminum.

Essentially, a durable steel frame, with steep track-type geometry. The ultimate underlying question being: which steel was better, which was pretty much answered.

But Thanks for the info on teh steel etc guys.

cc700

i think the rush is probably best if you want the most track like, but just as a caution, geo affects handling all over, it's not just the tube angles but the stay lengths and trail that makes something track. a lot of people think that a 73 degree seat tube angle is a 73 degree seat tube angle but it's not. the iro and kilo have very different geometry.