[Closed] How real is steel?

3 pages

imho the benefits of steel now lie in it's durability. Especially as you're considering a BFe...

It's still a great material to ride. Granted there are burly steel frames which aren't so lively but they are still so much nicer than aluminium frames IMO. Current bike of choice is a Singular Rooster.

It's the zing that makes it worthwhile.

Are we talking bikes or chicken?

Three of my four bikes are steel, the other's a carbon road bike. One is brilliant, one is neutral i.e. it could be any material really, the third is a bit dull.

Fortunately the dull one is my commuter/winter bike and the brilliant one is my main MTB. The neutral one is the fat bike where there's so much else going on that it's hard to pin anything down specifically to the frame.

Are we talking bikes or chicken?

Well, both, but not at the same time. That'd would just be crazy overzing.

For MTB's I reckon most of it is in the 'long and flexy' seatpost.

I've got two frames, identical apart from frame material.

After pissing about with them for over 10 years, I know the frame material does make a difference, but not as much as switching from a flexy post to a stiff one.

If you're a shortarse and anywhere near Burnley, you're welcome to try it for yourself.

Real(ly) heavy. Well my last steel frame was.

the only time I notice it on my soul is when I land it badly/sideways you feel the rear end flex then otherwise not so much,

I like the ride and the looks that steel gives, though Alu has come a long way and has some great ride qualities now I don't think you can beat a steel frame for looks.

Stones hitting the down tube sound much better as well.

Cheers, Steve

@Rusty - I'm not a shortarse nor anywhere near Burnley, but thanks for the offer 🙂

Yeah, there's definitely something really aesthetically pleasing about a steel frame.

So real they made a film about it.

[img] [/img]

I worked briefly in a bike shop when I was much younger, one of those old Cinder Cones came in and I hankered for one from that day. I've got a Swift at the mo, seems a bit hefty but it's a nice frame.

It's partly the properties of the material of course but you can't just expect to knock together a frame in steel and for it to have the properties for which steel has a reputation for (zing, compliance, feel). The design of the frame taking advantage of those properties plays a huge part I think.

My Production Privee frames(I have two now. It was an accidental purchase) for example, use an ovalised chainstay which really does add in some compliance. My Oka is just the most comfortable hardtail I've ridden and I've ridden loads.

[img] [/img]

They probably have some sort of fancy acronym for the ovalised tubes and what they do but meh, they do make a difference. I had a Transition Transam before and it was way more rigiderer (but still great)

I've had rigid steel frames but am convinced by what Production Privee do with their pig iron. 🙂

I would only buy steel hardtails now I think. Mind you, I also have a steel full suspension enduro gnarpoon rig.

imho the benefits of steel now lie in it's durability.

Geometry is far more important than material. Steel vs alu the main difference is about 1.5lb (give or take) frame weight.

If you want comfort get a suspension seatpost or a full sus.

philjunior - Member
imho the benefits of steel now lie in it's durability.

I reckon they lie in it's repairability.

another good point.

i was mostly thinking about the resistance of steel frames to things like cable rub, chain suck, etc. And Aluminium BB threads always make me a little nervous...

Well my 853 rigid bike is very nice to ride as was my aluminium hardtail and then it was also excellent when all the parts migrated to a carbon frame.

My carbon Defy is a is a fantastic ride whereas my steel Croix de Fer now feels like a horrible unresponsive uncomfortable pile of scaffold poles in comparrison.

My Robert's White Spider in pre CEN skinny Columbus tubing was also wonderful.

I probably wouldn't buy another steel bike now though unless I was looking for a custom build.

use an ovalised chainstay which really does add in some compliance

Shennanigans!

Most of my bikes are steel, and a significant proportion of the ones I have had but no longer own were also steel, and I love it as a material, but if you honestly believe that those slightly ovalised chainstays have any real effect on the compliance in the back end I reckon you're deluding yourself.

Whatevs, I'm not deluding myself. As I say, I've ridden lots of steel frames and these PP bikes feel different in the chainstay.

[img] [/img]

What happened with imported frames when the CEN stuff kicked in, did frames like the Niner Sir9 immediately get a chunk heavier too? Was there a magical year for the last load of (relatively) light steel frames?

I've ridden lots of steel frames

me too, but let's not play that game, it's childish and won't end well for either of us 😉

these PP bikes feel different.

I wasn't disputing that, nor was it a put down on your frame. But I do not believe that any noticeable compliance comes from the ovalisation of those chainstays [i]alone[/i].

I combination with other aspects of the frame design and back end maybe, but simply ovalising the chainstays there does not magically make the back end of a bike compliant.

Most vertical compliance (and there really isn't much in a frame) comes from the top tube, seat tube, and to a lesser degree downtube. Super skinny or flexy stays can play a part too, but that's in extremis and normally overshadowed.

Lateral flex on the other hand is what most people feel as compliance in steel frames and that's an even bigger can of (subjective) worms.

Feel free to model it and come back with some numbers and FEA to show how big an effect it has though, I'd be genuinely curious to see.

Those Production Privee frames look gorgeous. Might add it to the list for consideration

Pay for design, not specifically material.

That said, steel is tough (in a material properties way) and IMO that translates to a bike thats a bit more tolerant of rough treatment, like laying it down on rocks, and the general battering that MTBs receive. If they're used 'properly'.

Feel free to model it and come back with some numbers and FEA to show how big an effect it has though, I'd be genuinely curious to see.

Or you could, seeing as you're disputing my actual experience of riding the thing. I have my evidence.. 😉

I combination with other aspects of the frame design and back end maybe, but simply ovalising the chainstays there does not magically make the back end of a bike compliant.

I don't think that they 'simply' ovalised the chainstays, I'm fairly sure they put a bit more thought/design into it and presumably tested the ideas.
The seatstays are ovalised too for what it's worth.

Anyway, all other subjective things aside, skinny tubed steel frames really do tend to look good(also subjective)

Or you could

I have either the software nor the time, but if someone else has the time to do it, I am genuinely interested as I don't believe that it has much effect, but I would love to be able to quantify that either way. Do you know if PP have any data available? I'd assume if it was a big selling point or specific feature of theirs they would be able to quantify and demonstrate the difference.

seeing as you're disputing my actual experience of riding the thing

For the 2nd time... I'm NOT disputing your experience. I'm disputing your explanation.

experience:

My Oka is just the most comfortable hardtail I've ridden

explanation:

use an ovalised chainstay which really does add in some compliance.

My steel bike is the most comfortable one I own. It's also the only one with 4" tyres. It's real though.

Steel is real, big tyres are big liars. Or something.

IHN - Member
That'd would just be crazy overzing.

My life needs some [b]overzing[/b] !!

amedias - Member
Do you know if PP have any data available?

No data as far as I'm aware of but they do make a thing of it as below. Of course, what a company says and the reality is often different, but, I personally think that there is some truth in what they are saying from my experience alone.

Translated from French/written by a Andorran person on their website about the Shan model.
[b][i]The key point of the SHAN is the vertical flexibity of the rear end thanks to the KTP flex system. This allows more grip, more comfort and more efficiency in down-hill section! To achieve it we’ve developped our own specific bladed tubes for the chainstays and the seatstays their increase the vertical flexibility. We didn’t use bridge between chainstays for the same idea. The seatstays are not heat treated to allow a maximum flexibility.

To insure the performance of our KTP flex system, we should used high-end tubes. That’s why our SHAN are made with Japanese cromo 4130 triple butted tubing. All tubes are heat treated before welding excepted the seat stay to keep more even flexibility.
[/i][/b]

Reminds me of Cannondale.

this:

...The seatstays are not heat treated to allow a maximum flexibility.

is bobbins.

Before I bought my Soul, I was riding aluminium. Best quote I read “aluminium is steel with the life sucked out of it”

All my rides are now steel!

...The seatstays are not heat treated to allow a maximum flexibility.
[b]is bobbins[/b]

I'm no metal expert so can you explain why?
Heat treating makes the steel harder, then it's tempered to make it less brittle I thought.
If they don't harden and temper it, what would that mean for a length of tube in this circumstance?

I'm quite aware of the amount of marketing bobbins the public are subjected to but interested in why not heat treating it would make no difference?

All dependent on tube thickness/diameter whatever the material used.

I've ridden an old 456 with stays thin like pencils and a narrow 27.2mm seat post, it was bliss....also beneficial was the straight steerer which I'm sure added more flex than tapered steerers today...add in the 2.5 tyres I like to ride and it was exceptionally comfortable despite being cheap and not being the 853 steel that people rave about.

More recently I owned a steel Ragley that took a tapered steerer fork, had a 31.6mm seat post and stays that were thick like a snooker cue....the ride was completely different despite the material being the same.

I'm now on an Alu Dartmoor that rides the same as the steel Ragley, it's all big tubes and heavy duty welding like the Ragley....im still a massive fan of steel however, I never worried about breaking it, cracks appearing etc and I was always confident it could be repaired by a local welder if the worst happened.

Geometry is more important as others said, it's why I went to the Dartmoor....it is longer in reach and slightly slacker in head angle.

That said I do like the Production Privee idea of not putting a brace between the chain stays. I reckon that would be beneficial for lateral flex in any material and also aid tyre clearance and mud clearance....wonder if I could cut the one out of my Dartmoor!?

My mk1 Scandal was lovely, I bought a mk2 one, it was less lovely. I don't think my Swift is as comfortable as the old Scandal. It does have much more tyre clearance though.

Could well be rose tinted goggles.

kayak23 - Member

"bobbins"

I'm no metal expert so can you explain why?

i'll try.

Heat treating makes the steel harder, then it's tempered to make it less brittle I thought.

'heat treatment' is a catch-all-term, it can be used to harden, strengthen, soften, etc. depends on the material / temperature / cooling rate.

I'm quite aware of the amount of marketing bobbins the public are subjected to but interested in why not heat treating it would make no difference?

first, stiffness and strength are different characteristics. Strength is defined by the force (per unit area) the material will resist before failure. Stiffness is defined by the force (per unit area) required to elongate a tensile test piece to double it's original length, or, the force at strain = 1.

the stiffness of steel is about 210GPa (1,000,000,000 N per m2).

the stiffness of Aluminium is about 70GPa.

these are more or less fixed constants, like density. In fact, stiffness is quite closely related to density, as stiffness has it's source in the inter-atomic forces and the distances between atoms.

Stiffness is not significantly affected by heat-treatment, in very much the same way that density is not significantly affected by heat-treatment.

What awhiles said pretty much nails it. The only difference you'd get would be if it was yielding, at which point it would work harden (and increase the yield stress) and/or ratchet (and then break). In both cases if it was yielding over many bumps, it would break.

If the strength was lower, or welds not heat treated and more allowance needed for residual stresses that heat treatment would remove (and preventing them from helping fatigue to get going) more material would be required, and if more material was required, it would be stiffer/less compliant.

Tires/seatposts/saddle rails/supple forks are where it's at if you are looking for something to keep your hardtail comfy.

@Philjunior - I'm not looking specifically for comfort and recognise that it's going to be a bumpier ride, I'm more concerned about buying a steel frame (at a premium) to get none of the supposed benefits.

I don't have access to any decent FEA, but if you like I'll try and knock up a hand calc in my spare time.

Essentially though, lateral stiffness will vary due to tube size, vertically all frames that don't have a spring there will be "stiff", due to triangulation (this will also eliminate any benefit from the ovalisation on the chainstay - if you can't compress the seatstays it doesn't matter what you do to the chainstays). I'll include a calc for tyre stiffness too (assuming a flat surface to give the best possible effect of frame vs tyre). I suspect that any difference vertically will be marginal comparing typical steel vs typical alu. frames.

If anyone beats me to it with FE (including the tyre), I'll not bother of course!

kayak23 - Member

ovalised chainstay which really does add in some compliance.

BS Bingo!

I find my steel frame to be laterally stiff but vertically compliant

cynic-al - Member
kayak23 - Member
ovalised chainstay which really does add in some compliance.

[b]BS Bingo![/b]

As I said though, having ridden this bike, it feels comfier than any other hardtail I've ridden, BS or otherwise.
Anyway, meh....

Toasty - Member

My mk1 Scandal was lovely, I bought a mk2 one,

That was my Matrix moment- I had a mk1 scandal and rode a mate's inbred, and frankly if you blindfold tested them there's no chance at all you'd get it the right way round. Woah!

But my Soul was every bit the stereotype.

As it's a steel love in I'll go against the grain and say I wouldn't buy another steel MTB. I've had steel hardtails (Dialled and charge) and a few aluminium (GT and Cannondale).

I understand if you're a particularly hard rider and want the security, for me, it was weight I didn't need and I got on better with the aluminium bikes.

Carbon is my favourite material to date but I did really enjoy a skinny lightweight steel SS in town until it got half inched.

(I suspect it's more down to angles and components though)

I'm no metal expert so can you explain why?
Heat treating makes the steel harder, then it's tempered to make it less brittle I thought.
If they don't harden and temper it, what would that mean for a length of tube in this circumstance?

The stiffness of steel (Young's modulus) is not a variable that is being changed here. All steel has he same stiffness scaffold poles through to 853

I think seat post is what most of us can "feel" sat down

Some one linked an article here once saying that in blind testing the stiffest road frame vs the least stiff equated to a tyre pressure difference of 4 psi. But the slightest hint that a frame was a bit faster and suddenly people started being able to describe extra stiffness, even if they were on the bendier frame

Just think about a MTB hitting a rock with the back wheel. The think about the ratio of the deflection of the frame to the deflection of the tyre...

had a 456 ( trigger's mum's bathroom blue' one ) that felt heavy, dead.
a regular inbred which was fine.
an 853 inbred that rode identically to the regular gaspipe one as far as i could tell, at least until i ripped the headtube off it.
a P7 - post CEN, heavy, deadish.
a genesis alpitude, 853 and quite light, but a smaller frame than i should have been on, really.
i now ride a 2013 chameleon. by all accounts i should walk like john wayne these days. it's a nice, light bike, and runs a 2.4 chunky monkey in the back tubeless. dead comfy. 8)
steel is good for low volume manufacture, which is the main reason it still gets pushed, IMO.
how much movement do you realistically expect to get out the back end of a frame? 2mm? 3mm? any more than that and every time you push the crank the wheel is going to be rubbing the other side. 😆
compare that to a 2.4 tyre at 25psi.

Essentially though, lateral stiffness will vary due to tube size, vertically all frames that don't have a spring there will be "stiff", due to triangulation (this will also eliminate any benefit from the ovalisation on the chainstay - if you can't compress the seatstays it doesn't matter what you do to the chainstays). I'll include a calc for tyre stiffness too (assuming a flat surface to give the best possible effect of frame vs tyre). I suspect that any difference vertically will be marginal comparing typical steel vs typical alu. frames.

The seatstays won't compress but they will bend outwards under a compressive load, so shaping the chainstays can have a benefit.

I think you can perceive very subtle differences in frame behaviour. I mean, you wouldn't consider 0.5 degree a big change in an angle but it's pretty obvious to me when riding, be that seat or head angle. Likewise you wouldn't consider 5mm a big dimensional change but I'd notice that in reach or BB height, is obvious.

It's all very well saying that big low-ish pressure tyres make more difference but cars have big low-ish pressure tyres too, and suspension, and the chassis stiffness still matters.

Stiffness of Reynolds tubes, on page 4

ampthill - Member

I think seat post is what most of us can "feel" sat down

Not when we're using the same seatposts (which is become the case more and more with droppers).

But try it stood up... I had a Ragley Mmmbop (alu, stiff as ****) and a Ragley Ti (durr, ti, still fairly stiff for a Ti frame but way less stiff than the Bop), and with the exact same parts, the difference in ride was huge. It wasn't comfort, it was grip- the Bop bounced off everything, the Ti didn't.

How many mm of deflection was this? Neither know nor care frankly. It's obvious that small differences can be very telling though. 1mm more grip can be the difference between comfort and agony, and invisible differences between 2 bars can be the difference between fatigue and not.

Similar stuff

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/steel-bikes-going-against-the-curve/page/4

chiefgrooveguru - Member

I think you can perceive very subtle differences in frame behaviour

Seriously, even if all other relevant variables are the same, how about changes in weather, trail, you between various rides?

Northwind - same tyres and pressures?

The seatstays won't compress but they will bend outwards under a compressive load, so shaping the chainstays can have a benefit.

True, which is why I'll assume the extreme case of a dekerf style all the way up and then 90° to bring the stays together. Might see if I can stretch to a GT triple triangle too.

cynic-al - Member

Northwind - same tyres and pressures?

Yup. Same wheels, same bars, same forks. And I had both frames for long enough to know them inside and out

TBH, most people never get the opportunity to make this sort of real world comparison. And no wonder, it's not that common that you can get the "same frame, different materials" thing. So there's lots of perfectly reasonable sounding common sense theories out there that rarely get tested. If you rode my BFe and Soul you'd feel a difference too, but it was less clearcut. If you didn't feel a difference switching to my wibbly wobbly Soda I'd be amazed. Or my old Scandal and an Inbred.

But like I say, nobody doubts that a mm of grip thickness can make a huge difference. Presumably because practically everyone who's interested in this sort of thing has tried it.

It's all very well saying that big low-ish pressure tyres make more difference but cars have big low-ish pressure tyres too, and suspension, and the chassis stiffness still matters.

OK I should clarify what I meant

Frames band quite alot in response to forces outside the plane of the frame. A quick press on the pedal of a stationary bike shows a deflection of that nature. In my riding expereince deflections of this type aren't a good thing as they can do weird things to the steering. This the "stiff but vertically compliant" phrase starts to raise eye brows

Oh and no one says car is comfy as the chasis is flexible? Or do they? I may move in the wrong circles

But try it stood up... I had a Ragley Mmmbop (alu, stiff as ****) and a Ragley Ti (durr, ti, still fairly stiff for a Ti frame but way less stiff than the Bop), and with the exact same parts, the difference in ride was huge. It wasn't comfort, it was grip- the Bop bounced off everything, the Ti didn't.

To be sure about this then it would need a double blind study?

I like the way steel bikes look. Was all set to buy an expensive carbon road bike and just fell in lust with a steel one at the last minute. Might not be the best material/bike, but it's the one I want to own and ride.

I think with steel you're not talking about compliance in terms of 'travel', of course not, it's feel. It's just different. Different materials feel different. Combine that with different design elements and you get further differing characteristics between different frames.
Nobody is suggesting a steel hardtail is like having 100mm of suspension.

Pick up an alu bar and whack the side of a house with it. Then do the same with an iron bar, and then again with a wooden bar.
They'll all [b]feel[/b] slightly different.
That...

ampthill - Member

To be sure about this then it would need a double blind study?

Nope. If you want to make a scientific study out of it, then sure. But observation is perfectly valid. Especially when the outcomes run counter to expectations, like with the classic Scandal/Inbred comparison.

It'd be really interesting to do a double blind of course.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/science-and-bicycles-frame-stiffness/

I not be the best material/bike, but it's the one I want to own and ride.

Yep. I now have only steel bikes. Easton Taper-wall frames (Rocky Mountain and Kinesis) have been nice to ride in the past, but not so strong and easily dented. Also done the Cannondale thing, enjoyed light and super-stiff but I always missed skinny steel. Zingy and feels real. Another factor is I'm getting old and somehow seem to love my steel bikes like old friends.

This thread has been great, and I guess I'll find out how real steel is for myself in the next few weeks. Stanton Switchback on its way to me soon...

Steel it's just a passing fashion fad, sooner or later they will be all back to Alu or carbon 😉

There's always a few Jones bikes fans around here. He has quite a lot on his site about steel and how different types exhibit different riding properties.
How would they be in alu? Would the material make any difference?

[img] [/img]

My comparison. 2 steel bikes. Both similar style, agro hardtail.

Current pp shan
[URL= http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f384/muz_topbanana/Bikes/20150927_0853370_zpsjngyqvlf.jp g" target="_blank">http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f384/muz_topbanana/Bikes/20150927_0853370_zpsjngyqvlf.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Previous on on 456 summer season
[URL= http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f384/muz_topbanana/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/1486315_10201724622650909_1652395755_o.jp g" target="_blank">http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f384/muz_topbanana/Facebook/Mobile%20Uploads/1486315_10201724622650909_1652395755_o.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Despite the tubes being much smaller on the 456 and a 27mm seat tube the shan is significantly comfier. The pig iron 456 used to rattle down everything with lots of loss of traction. The shan? Far far less. Despite me getting older the shan is faster as well.

I think when people talk about compliance they are also describing about a materials ability to absorb vibration...

Different materials with different wall thicknesses and shapes do seem to dampen the transmission of vibration.

There's always a few Jones bikes fans around here. He has quite a lot on his site about steel and how different types exhibit different riding properties.

I was reading this thinking I've seen that Production Prive stay shape before - my Jones steel diamond frame uses it, he's been doing them in almost that same shape for ages. That bike / rear end has pretty much zero give vertically imo and the SS has a bend in it that the PP hasn't. Not much spring/twist up front either, no doubt it's a stiffer frame overall than most other steel MTBs I've ridden. Rides really well and it's very comfy, the post flexes and the ride position is good.

So is Jones steel less real than a more flexy frame.. dunno. It's a bombproof bike that rides really well, isn't that heavy and I like the fact it's made of steel.

How would they be in alu? Would the material make any difference?

Another factor is I'm getting old and somehow seem to love my steel bikes like old friends.

Steel is real but carbon is lardons.

Nothing rhymes with aluminium though 🙁

The magazine tested this year's ago. They had a black and white charge hardtail in. Anyone who rose one had to ride the other and describe the differences. One was lighter by an amount you would notice in a magazine test but that wasn't commented on much. Other than that people didn't describe much difference.

One was steel and one was ti.

Not double blind, but blind and made a mixed point.

I think the conclusion was if you want ti buy it 🙂

The magazine tested this year's ago. They had a black and white charge hardtail in. Anyone who rose one had to ride the other and describe the differences. One was lighter by an amount you would notice in a magazine test but that wasn't commented on much. Other than that people didn't describe much difference.

One was steel and one was ti.

Not double blind, but blind and made a mixed point.

I think the conclusion was if you want ti buy it

I'm honestly less bothered by frame materials than ever, there's so many other factors affecting the frame's function and the intangible "feel" factor that Steel is just as [i]'Real'[/i] as any other material it's more how you use it...

If anything now I'm a fan of Composites which has come a long way on bikes in a relatively short time and more is being learnt about all the time most, if not all, of the benefits that people claim for steel can be claimed for Composites also...

Notions of "Character" and sentimental attachment to older steel frames are fine, but TBH the HT's I want to ride now are more "Modern" geometry; the longer/lower/slacker thing suits me and contributes more to comfort than the inherent extra give from a slightly noodly bit of steel tubing...

That said I'm hanging on to my old 456-SS for a good long while yet.

As for Ovalised seat stays? Poor Kayak He's not actually wrong you know, it's simply that nobody (Including the manufacturers) have really bothered to quantify the effect of that minor tweak.

All PP have done is squashed a bit of tube in a vice to change it's section properties, it's a simple, but rather effective bit of engineering.

What that will have done is make it bend/flex more readily in the vertical plain with less input load, of course you still have the same cross section of material for compressive/tensile loads so ultimate strength for the structure hasn't been affected too much, it's using the material, manipulating the form to make the most of it's elastic properties...

Has anyone ever tried to work up a set of load cases for a HT frame?
I know I haven't but I bet it's nothing like as straight forwards as some would like to imagine.

Rear tyre, seatpost size/type/extension and saddle have far more influence on the comfort/springyness of these things.

I also thing frame design can allow for flex movement, but it is a couple of mm compared to a couple of cm from a tyre...

That said, I have ridden a few Alu frames that 'buzzed' my feet in SPD's unless you were running daft soggy rear tyre.

My Sanderson is also a seriously spriongy - you can make it flex and feel the flex as it chatters over stuff.

I am intrigued to try a more modern alu HT - there is something very clever about the Pinnacle alu HT's running 27.2 posts - and some of the more compliant frames (Sonder Transmitter for example). I think the weight saving would be fabulous.

I like steel frames, but it took me a while to get it - I had BFe and that was pretty dead and heavy to ride. It was almost as harsh as the Tazer that it replaced. I then swapped it for a Slackline 853 which is when I started to get the steel thing - that was a lovely little bike to ride. The 631 version that replaced it is supposed to lose some of the magic because of the bigger seat and head tubes.

Since then I've had a steel Switchback which wasn't too bad; it was a bit stiffer but not horrendous. I do wonder if the second generation will be stiffer again due to the yoke and internal routing that means thicker tubing. This has affected the Ti version - I had a Mk I Ti that was stolen which was replaced by a Mk II and it's lost a bit of the Ti feel that made the Mk I such a great bike to ride.

Of the current Steel Stanton range, the second gen Slackline frame is lovely to ride. I borrowed one and loved it. Really loved it. A friend has gone from a Ti Switchback to a steel Sherpa and loves the 853 tubeset as well. The new Slackline seemed to capture a lot of what I loved about the one that I had. Trouble is a lot of people don't get it and see it as not as good as the Switchback. As a general trail bike, the Slackline wins hands down for me.

As for Ovalised seat stays? Poor Kayak He's not actually wrong you know, it's simply that nobody (Including the manufacturers) have really bothered to quantify the effect of that minor tweak.

I've had 3 steel bikes and I sold them all, the weight of the frame outweighed any 'zing' or compliance. I've owned several carbon and aluminium bikes too, and currently have 2 carbon and 2 aluminium bikes. Even reasonably high end steel was either too flexy, 853 lemond zurich, or too heavy and dead feeling, condor fratello. I have a 10 year old Carbon Look frame that provides all the zing I expected to find in steel frames.

As for Ovalised seat stays? Poor Kayak He's not actually wrong you know

Sweet, I was beginning to think that I'd imagined it all and it was all just marketing BS Bingo... 😉

In terms of marketing BS while we're there, maybe I see some of the bike industry through rose-tinted specs but,a lot of these smaller companies, Production-Privee, Transition, Cotic, Stanton etc are by and large started and run by riders.
Now I know that products have to sell and that a lot of what helps them sell is a bit of harmless marketing BS, but somewhere, somewhere deep inside I'd like to think that they ride bikes...a lot, and so wouldn't generally just chuck a load of shaped tubes together and make up a load of twaddle about them to sell to unsuspecting fools such as I...

I take a lot with a pinch of salt, but at the same time, a lot of these companies are run by some talented riders and I sorta think that they may have a bit more integrity than the massive corporate outfits...
🙂
More fool me...

I understand that modern tyre size, fork travel etc are having a huge impact on handling and feel. But, all bikes have same/similar so, the frame will impact the 'remaining' handling feel.

I had a Kona Lavadome in the earlyish 90's, with rigid forks, 1.9 and 2.1 tyres, the steel feel was very, very real compared to my mates alu Cannondale which was far stiffer.

These days, there must be some dilution to the steel is real mantra, purely because of the huge changes mainly in wheels, tyres, forks.

That said, I still love steel

I dont think it fair to include road steel frames when comparing steel is real in an MTB sense. I have raced steel road bikes, Alu road bikes and steel track bikes, as a road frame material I still rate it for clubmen style racing (i.e. up to Cat2 as was). But, there is nothing wrong with any other frame material IF the geometry is accurate for racing.

My guess is this will rage for decades. Fact is, I think more of the steel frame builders build frames with 'pushy' geometries as it allows a differentiation in a busy market and, allows them to build some real fun bikes, the big builders need to sell mass market products to keep the corporate rev counter going, carbon fits that bill.

I think the marketing bs that annoys me (and applies to all HT frames/rigid frames) is the "vertically compliant but laterally stiff". I can see that something like the jones up there will allow some (possibly discernable - in fact probably discernable with the frame above and the effective seat tube length) vertical flex at the saddle, but they'll still be flexy laterally (pretty much regardless of material, although with increased stiffness from fatter tubes).

Then people start talking about things feeling zingy, I think that basically comes from a lightweight build with a bit of lateral flex in the frame. And that's fine, if that's how you want your bike to ride - I don't get too hung up on stiffness, as long as it vaguely goes where I point it and doesn't get a speed wobble on.

As for durability, well like everything else design and fabrication are far more important than the material. There are fatigue tests - I think for a German mag - that will back this up - and the CEN tests are just a fatigue test too, after all. If steel frames were failing it, what does that say for their durability?