The changeover must have passed me by, but I’ve read about steel frames being heavier since certain CEN legislation came into effect.

What aspects of frames were affected, and did they have a noticable effect (for good or bad) on the ride?

Also, when did the changes come in – was it in 2006 or 2010?

I’m just wondering if it’s worth looking for an old frame, or if it’d be wiser and safer to buy a newer CEN compliant one.

Stick with a pre-CEN one if you have a specific one in mind, the testing is generally regarded as ridiculous and the extra material needed to pass the tests has an effect on ride quality in many cases – may of the smaller designers manufacturing in China have struggled with this I believe.

In my opinion the CEN testing ruined good steel hardtails. The Inbred and Soul were totally different when updated for CEN compliance.

I don’t know what requirement there is is for frame sold in the UK to pass CEN.

Somewhere on the web is a piece of film where Cy Turner from Cotic talks about the CEN tests and thier implications.

Ah, found it.

Isn’t it down to frontal loading? Eqivalent to a 120 kilo rider jamming the brakes on a million times and not ripping the headtube off.

The issue seems to be the load in the opposite direction i.e. Loading the forks away from the bottom bracket. Cy suggests this is equivalent a 9g vertical load, presumably for a ‘standard weight’ rider . 10000 times.

All i know is that my pre-CEN rock lobster 853 was ‘real’ (probably just noodly, but nice), and the post CEN inbred that replaced it…wasn’t.

EN testing is now superseded by ISO testing, which is roughly the same but a little tougher. Its a funny old thing though. The idea of course is to ensure all bikes meet certain criteria, but thats not necessarily a good thing. I have a proto steel HT I love. Its made very light but for a 140 or 150 fork. It failed its ISO test so it didn’t make it into the production line up, but I still ride it every now and again (Not one that got ISO tested mind!), as I like it, and tbh I’m not at all worried its going to fold up underneath me and kill me. I’d not be at all worried about riding a pre-CEN bike assuming it doesnt have a reputation for breaking (some pre-CEN bikes were just ****, test or otherwise).

Go find a custom builder , they will build you anything your heart desires

problem solved

UNless you are bartyp of course.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/profile/bartyp

If you’re going to ignore frames post CEN then you’re also ignoring all the other changes since then, better geometry, taper headtube, better tyre clearance, greater dropper post compatibility…

Thanks for all that. The Cy Turner video was interesting.

I’m not too bothered about a bike not having the latest standards. I’d be happy enough with V-brakes!

However, the geometry thing might be a consideration – I’m not really a mountain biker, and my old MTB from the 90’s makes me feel nervous on descents.

I quite fancy a spritely ride, but with reassuring handling. I’ve never seen or ridden one, but a Mk1 Soul appeals. I was thinking about a Charge Duster, but I read some reviews which said they were heavy and too rigid, which got me wondering if the early Dusters were springy and if the last ones were over-built to confirm to CEN standards.

Its entirely possible that thats the case. Although I never got on with charge bikes geometry anyway.

TBH if you’re not looking for it you could easily miss the differences. Ive ridden rigid 29ers pre and post CEN and whilst the newest bikes are stiffer and more aolid feeling. It’s not like they suddenly became unrideable, they (steel, particulalry rigid forked, hardtails) just became a bit less “steel is real”.

But then pre CEN frames will have skinny headtubes, 26″ wheels or if not then maybe designed arround different offset forks to whats nkw standard. And thats without a decade of geometry tweekeing. There’s a lot more to how a bike rides than the diameter of the top tube (which is what CEN most affected).