I’m seeing it more and more with companies like cotic and most recently starling going against the industry and marketing with their wide carbon tubes supposedly stiffer than diamond in favour of thinner steel tubes. They’re getting amazing reviews and believe that some flex in a frame is a good thing so I was wondering what peoples opinions on here were? I like steel as a material especially, having an engineering background.

its all marketing.

Not at all marketing.

I like steel, Ive had Carbon, Steel, various alu frames, always come back to steel. Steel is nice. On road, geometry plays a far bigger role than frame material/weight (though nobody will accept that, that bit is all marketing), off road I think steel is fun on single track blasts as is carbon, alu is to me too crunchy.

They’re getting amazing reviews and believe that some flex in a frame is a good thing

Been saying this for years, they tried maximum stiffness in motorbikes a few years ago and they turned out to be chattery unridable pieces of crap, they eventually realised some flex is good for rider feel and feedback….finally MTBs seem to be going that way too now.

I love how quiet they seem but a lot of 1x bikes are now anyway. I also like how they seem pretty rugged and how some companies allow custom geometry etc due to their production output. The thin tubes seem pretty love/hate to people I’ve spoken to but I like them and they’d grow on me. Had my eyes on a commencal meta or norco range as a future bike but now I’m starting to be drawn more towards something like a cotic rocket.

Been saying this for years, they tried maximum stiffness in motorbikes a few years ago and they turned out to be chattery unridable pieces of crap,

beauty of carbon is that you can build in flex and stiffness where you need it.

kraken, which direction do you think this curve was turning in? I got the impression that interest in steel levelled off a while ago, brands came and went but the interest has always been there.

Some brands have been plowing this furrow for quite a while – DMR (I’ve got a Bolt, and love it!), Cotic, Surly, Dialled, and plenty of others.

Steel makes sense for smaller brands, and those who like to make bikes that will last, but aren’t necessarily too bothered about making featherweights.

All of my Mountain Bikes are steel. I Like the ride 🙂

Surly Krampus, Surly Instigator, DMR Bolt, Dialled Love-Hate, Genesis Vagabond, and Indy Fab Deluxe SS. Go Me 😉

Max Commencal used steel in the old Sunn bikes and purposely designed flex into the frames.
But the marketing people need to sell bikes and they can quantify stiffness. You can’t imperially measure fun.

Personally I’m leaning towards the Starling bike

Tom kp

It’s marketing. It’s not going to be as light as aluminium or carbon, and if you can really tell the difference between steel and aluminium you’re probably very sensitive. But it looks nice, and if you can convince yourself it rides better for whatever reason then go for it. I have a Transition Trans Am, it’s steel, but the main reason I got it is because I like it.

SeeTom Ritchey who, misquoted here but, if chromoly was created today it would be the wonder material….. highly robust, ‘ tunable ‘, repairable and light ish…..not all steel bikes are created equal though.

I’ve never really minded too much about weight, I spend 5 days a week in the gym weights wise and drink a lot of beer so I’d be a little hypocritical if I was upset over a little extra bulk on a frame.

All this boost spacing etc I get with less flex in frames and wheels but I think that a bike that doesn’t just have really well setup suspension but a greater ability to move and flex over undulations in the trail will result in better traction etc which is a bonus. I currently ride an alu spesh pitch and love it but steel frames are far rarer on the trails and seem a little more bespoke/special when you see them I suppose.

It took me a while to get the whole steel thing, but when I got the right frame (original Slackline 853) it clicked. I had a BFe before that it was pretty stiff and and no less harsh than things like my Chameleon.

I’m all for a bit of flex in the right place – I sacked off my SixC bars because they were too stiff and beat the hell out of my hands. Back on my preferred ali Pro Taper bars which are slender, flexy and more comfy.

mikewsmith – Member

beauty of carbon is that you can build in flex and stiffness where you need it.

yes you can, if you’ve got a massive research budget to run the development tests…

I think my main concern when I see single pivot frame designs is that I’ve heard a lot about pedal bob etc and I do stamp on the pedals. I haven’t looked into suspension designs as much as I usually would but I imagine a more methodical pedaling pattern or something similar helps this issue? I hear the odd bad thing about all suspension platfroms tbh, I haven’t ridden more than a few but I imagine they all have their pros/cons

Rubbish the CEN tests have resulted in stiffer steel frames than the past, so you can’t be telling me they are all flexy. I don’t get the steel love thing, and that’s from someone who rode steel frames for years. Quite frankly CF is the best material for bikes and aluminium is a brilliant cost effective solution. Steel well that is 1900’s tech and only really useful for custom builders.

I can get the stiffness thing if your looking at a multi pivot full suspension, where you might want to direct any movement into damped suspension action/reaction. Likewise a race BMX or track bike etc, where you want as much power transfer as possible, but even then stiffness could kill the thing prematurely. Spec & buy nice steel tubes, get the angles right & your half way there with steel frames, a lot more difficult (& expensive) with carbon & hydro-formed alloy.

My ht is steel & was pretty expensive when new. The mfr claimed each tube & its degree of butting was specified specifically etc. Might just be bumpf but it’s light, responsive & has a supple ride that’s bloody lovely. Nothing I’ve ridden in alloy even comes close. But look down as your mashing on & you can see it flexing all over.

yes you can, if you’ve got a massive research budget to run the development tests…

Or a decent FE solver and don’t sail quite so close to the wind with the strength, which harder to predict in composites (you’re only ever going to know the strength of any frame by chucking it through the tests though, to be honest).

Steel is fine, I’d agree that geometry makes more difference than weight, but whilst I can feel the flex in steel, I can’t feel an increase in comfort, and I can feel an increase in weight (although it’s quite a modest increase in weight in the context of a full bike). And these days there’s no difference in the price of a steel frame against that of an aluminium one, but the aluminium will be 1-2lb lighter. I’m yet to ride a bike that’s too stiff to give feedback (though I’ve not ridden any high end modern carbon).

Some steel does look very nice though, and I wouldn’t rule out steel, just don’t lust after high end steel at the moment.

dragon – Member
Steel well that is 1900’s tech

Jeremy Clarkson is not a reliable source for accurate materials science factoids…

Well the stock 4130 grade was apparently established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the 1930s and Reynolds 531 goes back to a similar time. So I’m afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn’t moved on a lot since the 1930’s.

A well designed bike will be a good bike (geometry, shock curve, etc) no matter what material it is made of. One man band designing/making bikes is going to make a good job of it, the big manufacturers can afford to make some howlers (xl stumpjumper has a 145mm tall headtube???_ as people will buy them on the brand alone

In the case of Cotic, Starling, Shand, Stanton, etc, these are expensive frames and so will tend to have nice parts hung off them, which will make the bike feel a bit more special.

Steel is nice to work with, the FEA is more straightforward and correlation to the real world is cheaper. Final year project at uni was to build a single seat race car and it was quite surprising how close the FEA was to the real world tests! Did mean the safety margins could be a lot smaller!

I’m guessing this was behind this thread (if not it should have been!)

Starling Murmur – the steel bike that’s blown us away

Steel. A New Blueprint? 

I can get the stiffness thing if your looking at a multi pivot full suspension, where you might want to direct any movement into damped suspension action/reaction.

The problem is that we lean our bikes over around corners, so the suspension goes sideways as much as upwards, which isn’t ideal for handling bumps.

I definitely think for a hardtail, steel is king. I wouldn’t have any other material now but obviously frame design plays a big part.

I’ve currently got a Production Privee Oka that rides just beautifully. They have horizontally ovalised chain stays to build in a little compliance.
It’s easily the most comfortable hardtail I’ve ever had and I’ve had my share.

Also have a Cotic Rocket 275. You could argue that steel isn’t structurally important in a full suss, and maybe not. Aesthetically though, the small diameter tubes look lush.

dragon – Member

Well the stock 4130 grade was apparently established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the 1930s and Reynolds 531 goes back to a similar time. So I’m afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn’t moved on a lot since the 1930’s.

6061 aluminium alloy was developed in the 1930s. Carbon fibre was first commercialised in the 1800s. What changes is how you use and shape the material.

zero cool – Member

Max Commencal used steel in the old Sunn bikes and purposely designed flex into the frames.
But the marketing people need to sell bikes and they can quantify stiffness. You can’t imperially measure fun.

Nico Vooleywoo is the same- Lapierre sent him their latest greatest bikes, and he set about them with a lathe and mill to add flex where he wants it. But it’s not quite as simple as you say- some people do prefer stiffer.

You don’t see many steel rims any more lol

Love steel on a road bike.
Just feels right.

Not as fussed on a hard tail.
I think design, construction, tyres, correct fork set up and seatpost make more difference that frame material.

I’m starting to be drawn more towards something like a cotic rocket.

I tested the original Rocket because I loved the way it looked, bought it because I loved the way it rode. Haven’t regretted it once and 4 years later I’m looking at the 275 version with lust.

I don’t think a full sussers material is as influential in the ride as it is on a hardtail, it’s a lot more about the suspension design.

@kraken there is a little pedal bob, but not enough to bother me certainly. Try one you’ll love it.

So I’m afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn’t moved on a lot since the 1930’s.

But the wheel has been around (arf!) for aaaaages and that’s still relevant technology…

Steel’s just nice though, isn’t it? Bit more recyclable than CF as well.

Stiffness is not a function of the material. I like my steel SS HT, but it is tube diameter that determines stiffness.

So I’m afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn’t moved on a lot since the 1930’s.

And the bicycle is even earlier 19th century…

and you want to talk about old tech?

The Dirt piece on the new Starling was very interesting, but Jones definitely wasn’t saying “steel is best” – just that it can make a really good FS bike. We all know it’s great for hardtails anyway.

I’ve had a few bikes in recent years (slight understatement) and some have definitely been too stiff – to the point where there’s too much feedback when trying to ride at speed or the bike starts getting out of shape.

Sometimes a stiff bike feels better for hitting turns or drops, but turns out to be slower down a rocky hillside. While a flexy bike can be fast but a bit unnerving as I feel my feet moving sideways in the corners (Orange Patriot).

But I’ve also had carbon and alu FS bikes that were “just right” in terms of chassis stiffness. I’d love to try a decent steel one.

My steel FS (Rocket) is exactly the same weight as my old alu FS (Alpine) with the same kit hanging off it – there may well be an argument that the Alpine was overbuilt but the Rocket is in no way a delicate little flower… So the weight argument holds little water for me and my riding. Back end of the Alpine was WAY flexier than the Rocket’s, but that’s more to do with suspension design than materials.

Anyway – http://www.cotic.co.uk/geek/page/SteelFullSuspension

And IIRC some more in the series of lecture videos here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxuT8W9cmPs

Possibly some marketing in there, but Cy is a proper engineer and I tend to trust his analysis.

@Kayak23

I definitely think for a hardtail, steel is king. I wouldn’t have any other material now but obviously frame design plays a big part.

This I agree with too however, I rode a Scott Endorphin for a really long time, about 15 years, it was truly hard to fault for me and my riding.

I do recall riding a mates Cannondale (higher spec more expensive) bike alongside my steel Kona and the Kona felt far more ‘alive’, the aluminium Cannondale was lighter stiffer but not so nice to ride.

Id love to ride an ‘old’ steel frame and one of the new CEN tested frame.

Loads of words in here.

All I know is I saw one of these in the flesh yesterday and it looked reet lush.

Very slender looking, felt light enough in the hand, nice pastel colours, good sizing. It was sitting next to some very expensive carbon bikes from the usual suspects and it definitely stood out.

I can’t wait to test ride a Rocket.

The problem is that we lean our bikes over around corners, so the suspension goes sideways as much as upwards, which isn’t ideal for handling bumps.

I’ve got a quite flexy steel FS (BTR Fabrications), and one of the surprising things about it is the way it ‘wriggles’ through rocks and roots when you’re really pushing it, it feels a bit odd if you’re not expecting it, and will definitely feel odd if you’re used to very stiff frames, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is beneficial, some of it comes form the back end on mine but the front triangle definitely has some influence on it as well.

Mated to a fairly burly front fork it works very well, you get decent accuracy from the front end, and the back end will just make its way through on a mix of the suspension and flex, it feels smoother in most circumstances and there is less bucking from the back end and it seems to have more traction too, in that it doesn’t break loose in a snappy way like some very stiff bikes can when they get punted laterally mid corner or heading through rock gardens, if I were forced to describe it in one word it would be ‘fluid’ and it’s not all down to the suss as it has quite basic shock on it by modern standards.

I’ve got a Cotic Flare frame sitting in a box here to build up too which I bought of the back of a couple of decent demos (1st with a Rocket, 2nd with Flare) and it has echos of the same feel but different, certainly stiffer than the BTR, but it’s a different bike with different geo and intent and I’m going to enjoy back-to-backing it with my BTR on some favourite trails.

I’ve also got a few steel hardtails, my wife stole my Charge Duster Skinny off me last year but that was a sublimely flexy little thing for XC, very comfy and quicker than it should have been. I’ve also got a Simple which is nice and seems to strike a decent balance. I’ve also got an older prototype Soul, with a lighter weight tubeset on the front triangle and that thing is noticeably bendy, I like it for general XC and trail stuff, but it gets out of it’s depth in big rocky stuff at speed, I’ve had a few moments where I’ve felt like I’ve been fighting to keep the front end under control and had some interesting ‘twangs’ when barrelling into and out of welsh rock gardens, it’s much better behaved on swoopy woodland singletrack, despite having the exact same geo as the simple, and very similar back ends those two frames ride like completely different bikes!

Ultimately though it’s all options and choices, I’ve got/had Alu, Ti and CF bikes as well, all good but what’s best for one person and one situation isn’t necessarily best for another, and 1-2lb is irrelevant unless you’re at the sharp end of an XC race (and even then not *that* relevant) so go with what you like 😉

Road biking: I was doing some very long distance stuff a couple of years back. My carbon bike was U/S, so I rode my steel 631/ carbon forks winter bike instead. At the end of 140 miles I was astonished how less knackered I felt after riding the steel bike

MTB: I’ve recently got a Cotic Rocket Max (29, or 27.5 plus. Both boost). What a bike! It just puts a smile on your face & makes you want to have some fun. (I was riding a Whyte before, a hugely capable magic carpet ride. Little character, few smiles).

I’ve got a steel hardcore HT (chromag Rootdown) and I love it – I think for it’s rigidity, alu has failings in the sense that I’ve cracked 2 (maybe 3?) alu frames.
I also love the skinny steel tubes.

You know what they say -“steel is real”. And who would want to ride a made up bike?
Apart from Ti. I like ti. That’s nice.

Though my race SS is alu. So that’s also good as it’s light. Though i’d like the same geo in skinny steel.

Bikes are good.

DrP

It was sitting next to some very expensive carbon bikes from the usual suspects and it definitely stood out.

see, marketing.

Well, if we’re doing pictures….

My Rocket. Nom nom nom…

My Oka

Steel for life 😀

How did you get that wall on your bike?