I’d pay money to see a blind test on a bike.

“little to the left, straighten up a bit…mind that tree!”.

Grips and seat post can be just as important as tyre pressures, when it comes to percieved all day comfort.
Swap a carbon/lightweight alloy post for a Thomson and the difference (to me) is much greater than a difference in frame material.

I say this having ridden both Easton alloy & 853 Rock Lobsers over the past 6 years – same geometry & designer.

Which do I prefer?
In all seriousness, it depends on how knackered I am on the day & the number of gates and stiles on the route, tbh.

To compare you’d have to have both frames built up exactly the same, and do a blind test. hehe
I doubt most of us would be able to tell.

Honestly, if you were used to them you’d be able to tell in a second – Ms S has the alloy bike and just by the way it accelerates and responds to pedelling you can tell it’s the stiffer alloy one.
But as I say, that’s six years of familiarity.

I recently broke my 456 frame and decided to stick with steel. I looked at the Pipedream Siruis, a Blue Pig X and finally settled on a Kinesis Decade Virsa II.

I wanted a replaceable mech hanger and a more compliant frame.

The 456 and the Virsa are chalk and cheese! The Virsa is lighter and rides so much better than the 456. The 456 always felt harsh at the back and made an average XC night ride around the Winchester hills a bit of a sore arse type of ride. The Virsa seems much more compliant, no sore arse in the first dozen rides!

In terms of handling I think the Virsa has the edge, it’s a more XCish type of handling but it’s just very confidence inspiring and I’m chucking it into tight corners with ease.

All in all I think steel is a fantastic frame material, I’ve had steel, carbon, ti and alui frames in the past and the Virsa is by far the best overall.

I had one of the original chumba hx1 alu hardtails which was massively stiff and uncomfortable after a couple of hours. I then bought the mk2 version and transplanted everything, the only change was the fork csu as the new model has a tapered headtube. The geometry was the same, it was still alu etc but it had different tube profiles.

The difference was noticeable from the word go, it was like chalk and cheese – much comfier and could now be ridden all day without feeling battered…

Now in order, everyone recite after me…

Geometry > Tube diameter > Material

which translates as:

Handling > Rigidity > Weight

Steel needs thicker tubes and is heavier, aluminium larger diameter tubing, so can be more rigid. Titanum has the best of both, and carbon can be anywhere on the spectrum. Geometry is above everything else.

And I have Steel road and MTB, Ti road and am planning on a carbon HT.

djaustin – Member

…Steel needs thicker tubes…

thicker walls?

My Niner SIR9 feels nice. Inbred with exactly the same build was harsher. Its quite flexy though.

Maybe it’s just me, but I couldn’t really tell the difference between riding alu and steel

I feel happier and more comfortable on a steel bike. I’m not sure why that is. When it comes to buying a new one it’ll be steel. I don’t care that much about weight as I am not a serious cyclist. I like the simple clean aesthetics of a steel bike. and I know if I crash it it can be bent back!

Try riding a proper steel frame and not a luddite scaffolding pole frame OP. Youll be in heaven

Those that cannot tell the difference after say three hours are the ones flaunting words like ‘perceived’ differences.

I can assure you that if you do any serious biking you’ll know. I’ll give you an over simplistic physics activity you could try.

Whack a metal bar on a rock and then try the same thing with aluminium. Let me know how your hand fairs after repeated blows. Assuming you can still type.

I’ve had an Inbred. It was alright. I’d probably describe it as distinctly average in its ‘magic’. My current Evil Sov. is the same material but an absolute brick by comparison. My mid-90s Kona, also the same material, is a bit of a (very tasty) noodle in comparison with either. So… if you can compare different frames made of the same material, then you probably can’t make sweeping statements about the awesomeness of one material over another, right?

b r – Member

I can, for both disciplines they engineer in ‘compliance’. For example when a m/c is leaned over the forks aren’t really able to work fully therefore the frame is made ‘flexible’ to reduce chatter.

Totally different levels of force at play though.

colande – Member

To compare you’d have to have both frames built up exactly the same, and do a blind test. hehe I doubt most of us would be able to tell.

A blind test would be interesting… But other’n that, what you describe is exactly what happens when you replace a frame. Old kit goes on new frame.

thicker walls?

Yes.

I found my Inbred to possess none of the ride qualities of steel: to me it was basically dead, flat and although a good fit (nice long ETT) it was pretty dull.
Same kit on a Scandal seems to possess none of the qualities of aluminium: to me it feels compliant and forgiving without any sacrifice on power transfer and handling… If someone told me it was a very expensive Ti frame I’d believe them.

Not a dissimilar experience to Northwind I guess.

Still reckon geometry and frame design are way more ‘noticeable’ than material.

The placebo effect is great, it’s shown in drug trials that placebos can have a greater affect than the drug being trialled.

I think the danger is that old kit on new frame, you can quickly forget how the old bike rode.
I definitely call on stw to do blind bike test of same frame built in ally and steel.
Come on stw i think that’s a feature we’d all like to see.
Every one starts shouting
“blind bike test”
“Blind bike test”
Hehe 🙂

colande – Member

I think the danger is that old kit on new frame, you can quickly forget how the old bike rode

Sure… But with big black and white differences that’s not really a problem. I went Soul- Mmmbop- C456. Sold the Mmmbop specifically because it was as stiff as a stiff thing. Went to the C456 which has other vices but the difference in the rear end couldn’t have been much more obvious. And one of the reasons I couldn’t abide the Bop was that I’d had the Soul and knew hardtails don’t have to feel like that.

Went from a Cove Handjob to Ragley Blue Pig and fell back in love riding a hardtail.both steel but feel totally different.

Good steel frames are not only thinner diameter but thinner walled than aluminium ones.

I always find it interesting how people translate lateral flex (which is something you can quite easily feel the difference in between different frames) as vertical compliance (which is so small in even a “flexible” hardtail that you can’t).

Went from a Cove Handjob to Ragley Blue Pig and fell back in love riding a hardtail.both steel but feel totally different.

They are both HT’s? WHY did they feel different (both being steel)?

Radial stiffness, lateral rigidity / less resistance to flexure … and all that journo balls. Look, steel reacts better to trail nastiness – and that’s that.

frame material generalisations are stupid.

This.