Good looking steel adventure/road bike you say

Have you looked at the Cotic Escapade or road rat?

linky

Definitely comfort for me. Mk3 Soul replaced an Orange 5 and just as comfy on all but fast trail centre and big rocky days. Similarly CDF30 for touring and gentle off road, although on a long road ride it’s no more comfy that carbon Defy

Love my Genesis Flyer commute 125km a week on it and it never feels like a chore even with London traffic.

I can see little reason to get a steel frame unless you are going custom. The supposed comfier ride is just old wives tales with nothing to back it up.

Oh and Reynolds 520 is dire stuff, proper bottom of the range tubing.

Reynolds 520 is dire stuff, proper bottom of the range tubing.

It’s CrMo which is good stuff if used well. For the majority of bikes it can make a really good frame, I still put a few 1000 miles a year on a 520-tubed road bike.

Steel tends to get a more emotive reaction that I guess comes from the durability, it’s more likely to make a bike that’s seen as a keeper that you get attached to. It’s simple and reliable as well as having a classic element. It’s no more comfy than Al is harsh though, all depends on the design.

CaptJon, I have a Soloist 853 which is
a) beautiful to look at
b) rides very nicely
c) pretty light.
I also have a 1992 Marin Eldridge made of Tange Prestige which is only one and a half of the above.

I love my aluminium kona jake that still lives after years of abuse.
But I mainly ride
Steel marin
Indy Fab steel
Merckx steel
Ti456
Steel fixxee for work
Spesh cross bike – ally – looks nice but not getting used
Not sure I would ever consider a steel FS – maybe because of the shock a billy I saw once.
Steel bikes just look nice and ride a bit softer, which is good as all my steel bikes are rigid.

Because people don’t post photos on here of cracked welds. They just take the frame to somewhere like Argos in Brizzle. The bike lives on.

Ti for life didn’t seem to last.

Because with brazing or welding, you can get frames made to measure.

Just look at the sexy curves of those stays:

I had one of those, fantastic frame, wish they’d bring it uptodate with a 29er.

Reynolds 520 is dire stuff, proper bottom of the range tubing.

520 is 525 made under licence in Taiwan, and can be the same as 4130 which is a type of Cr-Mo. But one 520 bike can be different to another because there will be more than one 525 tubeset (roadie, mountainbike, oversized, 29er versions etc). And even then it’s not uncommon on MTB’s at least to spec different chainstays as the Reynolds range is quite limited.

You can even get 520 tubing suitable to build into car chassis!

Steel tends to get a more emotive reaction that I guess comes from the durability, it’s more likely to make a bike that’s seen as a keeper that you get attached to.

Might be some truth in this, I’m a serial frame swapper, but I realised the other day that my ‘new’ steel frame is now 3 years old. If it was a new-ish FS bike it’d have the wrong axle standard, too few gears, not be dropper compatible and other things, but Steel frames tend to be more timeless by virtue of being simpler so they never get outdated.

You can even get 520 tubing suitable to build into car chassis!

Yes but it’s material tech from the 1930’s. I’m sorry I just don’t rate 520 at all, it tends to build heavy, lifeless frames. Oh and you pay more for it because it’s got Reynolds sticker rather than it just being listed as plain 4130 (which it is).

I’ve had a few steel frames and to be honest, didn’t ‘get’ the comfy/compliant/feel etc thing vs other frames. They rode nice (Cotic Soul and mk1 Inbred SS especially) but never felt special. A couple of years down the line I build a Dialled Love/Hate and fell on the side of Hate – felt like it was made of girders (admittedly not helped by the On-One forks on it at the time). Replaced that with one of the cheapo Curtis S1s which CRC were knocking out and everything clicked into place. You just need to look at the frame to see why – the seat and chainstays are about as wide as my little finger and the top and down tubes aren’t much bigger. Coupled with some nice forks (Salsa Cromotos) the ride is everything I imagined a steel frame should be after reading all the guff in the mags.

Yeah, mine’s 4 years old (but I’ve only owned it about a year) and I can’t see me wanting to swap it any time soon, mainly because I’m tight/poor, but also because it’s such a lovely frame and there’s nothing else out there except maybe a Chromag Stylus (older one without the hoopty swoopty top tube) that ticks my box. There’s a certain ‘thing’ about having a chromoly frame for those of a certain age who had BMXs- 100% 4130 (or whatever) was a cool sticker to have on your frame BITD 😀

By properly I mean traditional 1-1/8 steerer head tube, narrow 27.2mm seat tube, stays as thin as pencils etc etc….when done like that there is an inherent flex/spring from the frame that is a joy to ride.

Unfortunately the prevalence of massive head tubes to take tapered forks, large diameter seat tubes to take dropper posts and chunky stays mean that modern steel frames are often as harsh as their fat tubed aluminium cousins.
So who still makes a traditional MTB frame like this? From a quick look, Genesis and Cotic mentioned in this thread seem to have switched to fat head tubes for their currently available models. On One still do the Inbred. What else is there?

Yes but it’s material tech from the 1930’s. I’m sorry I just don’t rate 520 at all, it tends to build heavy, lifeless frames.

Blame the designer not the material. Blame the CEN / ISO tests also, to be fair. I still think there’s examples of 4130 making bikes of all kinds that ride well.

A lot of steel tech hasn’t moved on that much it’s true – that’s why it’s so well proven and reliable, it’s a good thing.

Oh and you pay more for it because it’s got Reynolds sticker rather than it just being listed as plain 4130 (which it is).

No need to, it’s pence per frame for the decal if you’re using those tube specs.

Blame the CEN / ISO tests also, to be fair

That was the reason for the changes to the Soul wasn’t it? I’ve got a Mk1, which is definitely a ‘you can prise it from my cold, dead hands’ job.

I’m firmly in the camp of ride feel being dictated by the design, not the material.

You can make a frame stiff and harsh out of any material
You can make a frame noodly and compliant out of any material
You can make a frame with a mix of the above too

Some materials may lend themselves to one aspect a bit better than others for certain parts of the the frame, some may be cheaper or easier to achieve your desired result from, and some may have a weight penalty, but ultimately it’s not the material that dictates the ride feel, it plays a part in the overall picture, but it’s not the defining factor.

FWIW, I have Alu, Carbon, Steel (posh and boggo), and have had Ti as well, I like them all for different reasons.

Steel for me is about longevity, resilience, reliability and repairability more than anything else.

I’ve got a MK soul, so not the holy grail MK1, but it’s straight steerer, 27.2mm post.

Had a genesis core (alu) before, and may mate has it now. They’re similar bikes really, but I do find the soul more comfortable, fun, ever so slightly more flexy, I just love riding it, it feels ace, I don’t notice the miles clocking up, nor have I ever thought it’s heavy. I don’t think I’ll ever sell that frame. The hard bit will be getting forks when I need some.

Just building a genesis io (520, not the 853 version sadly) into a rigid SS hack. I just love the simplicity, clean lines and general aesthetic of a nice thin tubed steel frame.

I also have a scandal 29er (all alu – there’s a theme here of me not having the ‘best’ version of frames, isn’t there) it’s fast, stiff, light, and ace at what I use it for, but I’d pick the soul over it for comfort and fun any day.

Hmm, the weight thing, the frame on my Solaris is quoted as being 2.22Kg while a carbon 29er frame (On-One) is quoted as 1550g so just under 700g difference. No doubt you could find lighter carbon frames.

My bike as built is 12.7Kg so with the same components I’d get a 5.5% weight saving by having a carbon frame. Would it be as nice to ride? Who knows, not me – I don’t care as I love the Solaris.

Yup, steel frames rust out overnight…

So this bike’s disintegration is overdue by 80 years or so.

I wondered how long it would take to post up a Sanderson. 😉

TINAS. Sanderson have updated to a 29er. The Town Crier:

Steel frames are not all made equally. With the right tubes and the right geometry they can be special life time bikes. Get them wrong and they can be bloody awful. I’ve had some absolute dogs, I won’t name names, but also some some gems. The Kona Paddy Wagon was good, the Genesis Day One was really good.

My Sanderson Soloist is a keeper. It needs a fresh coat of paint, but I’ll have a new dropout welded in with a mech hanger so I can run gears if I want to. How many carbon or aluminium frames can I do that with?

Those Sandersons look good, where are they based? Their website seems borked in that respect.

Steel frames are not all made equally

As others have said, there can be a world of difference between bikes. My other steel bike is an On-One Pompetamine and it might be politely described as “sturdy”. There’s no life in the frame but a lively frame wasn’t what I was after when I bought it: I wanted a bike that was solid, reliable and non-twitchy for commuting.

Two bikes, both steel but I know which one puts a smile on my face 🙂

Or, why do people like Aluminium bikes?

i’m contemplating replacing my cdf frame with an Arkrose frame – mostly for the increased mud clearance.

the (approx) 500g weight-saving sounds nice, but the downside is a frame that is so soft it can be killed with a few hours cable-rub. Or (as i’ve seen at work) a frame that’s severely buggered after being rattled against the bike-stands by the wind.

i had a steel Dh bike for a while. Shuttle-rash held no fear for me.

I’ve got my dad’s old Dawes impulse. it’s at least 25 years old, it’s still a lovely thing.

People like steel bikes cos it’s like way cheeper than buying one.

i’m contemplating replacing my cdf frame with an Arkrose frame – mostly for the increased mud clearance.

could always get a new CDF, they now have loads of clearance 🙂

This is 853, the so called wonder steel. According to folk lore, it should ride like a leaf spring, however. Its rock solid.

A bike’s character is a function of its design, which includes geometry and decisions on tube material and thickness.

It’s only been broken down into something more simplistic for the proles.

Wonder what Sandersons ride like now post-CEN? They were ace before.

True- any frame in any material doesn’t ride the same as others of the same material. I remember a ti airborne feeling like it was alive/brilliant yet still stiff. Then another make that felt flexy by comparison.

I can’t remember off hand where Sanderson are based. They are available from Independent 100.

iainc – Member

could always get a new CDF, they now have loads of clearance

the frame’s £500, and i don’t like the colour…

i’m not opposed to aluminium frames, i own a few, i just try and accept that each frame has different characteristics beyond ride quality.

the main criticism of steel frames is the weight penalty, which is usually around 600g – whoop de doo.

Wonder what Sandersons ride like now post-CEN? They were ace before.

You loved yours so much you kept it for a whole fortnight, if I remember rightly. 😆

I’m a big fan of steel frames. Mind you … the last alloy hardtails I had were a Chameleon, and then a Pace RC305, both of which left you feeling like a bad night in the showers at Wormwood scrubs. Anything feels compliant, bouncy and positively Tigger-esque after those!

And as many have pointed out, skinny tubed steel frames just look ‘right’

I have a steel framed mountain bike, I like it very much and that’s enough for me.

When you took that pic binners, crouched/adjusting…you must have felt self-concious? I always do when I take a pic of my bike in public.. like I’m being a frickin geek.

hora – Member

…
If the Rocket can accommodate 650b I’d say its easy worth £700. This answers the OP’s question IMO (as well as including some arguing within his veiled for sale topic). you know the unwritten rule- you post a ‘whats it worth’ thread and its open-season

My frame will depreciate? True- but its being used and I know I can use both wheel sizes in it.

wrong thread you berk! 🙂

Got an iOID made out of Reynolds 520 (shock horror!) and I love it. Its handling turns a dull ride into something fun and exciting. Great to jump and bombproof. A tad weighty but the Alfine is a heavy unit.

It’s done five years of hard work and other than a little surface rust on a few stone chips feels as good as the day I bought it.

Might even do a few laps on it at MM24 this year.

TINAS. Sanderson have updated to a 29er. The Town Crier:

[Edit] 69° HA, thats really quite slack? I liked the old-skool XC feel of the life 🙁

My steel 29er, despite being rigid and having lightweight kit apart from the wheels, weighs 26lbs. This is pretty lardy considering I have a FS 26er that weighs 21lbs!

molgrips, bet those wheels (with tyres etc) weigh something like 4lbs more than the equivalent on the 26er.

TINAS.

My Soloist is the same geometry as the Life, but I have 120mm Revs on it. Measured a few times and it comes out at 67°. It’s not slack in any shape or form, still feels very XC. They are recommended for a 100mm fork, but what does a bike designer known. 😉

molgrips, bet those wheels (with tyres etc) weigh something like 4lbs more than the equivalent on the 26er.

The wheels are about 1800g ish, at least the more modern versions are claimed to be that. They are Bonty Rythmn Elite and appear to be an older version since they are a different colour to th eones on the website. The tyre sare pretty light race xxx lite things. The 26er otoh has ZTR Olympics on XTR with Sapim Laser spokes so something like 1350g, and the tyres are Racing Ralph evo 2.0. So probably more like 2lbs difference.