Forum menu
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 - MemberI 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.
chiefgrooveguru - MemberI think you can perceive very subtle differences in frame behaviour
I KNOW you think you can 🙂
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 - MemberNorthwind - 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 - MemberTo 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.
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.
That bike flexes vertically because of the design mostly but the steel bike is said to be less vertically springy than the Ti. Ti has a lower stiffness value.
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?
The amount flex that design encourages isn't generally a good thing for a welded aluminium frame but I expect it could be done. It's only a bit of give, not 2-3" of travel. Could be a great bike I think if it was comfy and about the weight of the ti version but cheaper. Or not cheaper, after all the alu tubes had been custom-made for that design and all the R+D done to make it reasonably durable.
I think there's a lot to this. Subjective and a non-engineering take on it but for some of us it's a factor. Durability is important - if I like a bike and I'm not changing shocks or a lot of parts very often then a 10-15 year lifespan may be realistic and that adds a lot of value. You can get the same lifespan in other materials but steel seems to manage it most consistently. It's old tech, it's tough and simple, it's less 'now'. Outside of fashion never really goes out of fashion, or something like that.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 🙂
That test was a good mag feature but imo only showed that Charge made both frames to a similar stiffness and many people can't spot a 31.8mm tube compared to a 34.9mm tube : )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
Valid conclusion either way : )
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.
He's not in tube properties sense but I think it's marketing stuff that makes riders attribute much comfort to that sort of stay design, in most cases. I've done basic FEA for the main frame deflection when you go from round to ovalised tubes, it's not much in actual mm of flex but it's significant in % terms. It becomes 'noticeable' (subjectivity warning) if you've got 2 otherwise similar/same frames to ride and both TT and DT are ovalised on one of them - I did some trials of old FW Evans 'Evans Oval' (a 1920s patent) frame tube specs built into a more current road frame geometry.
For the rear end it's not a loading I've set up so I haven't quantified it, from riding a load of bikes with different tubed but similar-sized rear triangles I'd put it in the reams of micro-tuning and princesses and very small peas. I'd suggest the Jones and PP rear stay ovalisation adds sideways stiffness but makes little (or less..) difference to vertical give since vertically it's a triangle, a small one at that on the PP. I can't feel flex there in the vertical plane of a standard bike frame design and I think I'm sensitive to or able to isolate aspects of frame feel fairly well.
I've also seen trad diamond shape frames heavily loaded from the seatpost on ISO test jigs and the stays are a small part of the overall flex of the frame (design / tube bends or junction alignment make more difference). The thread that was linked to earlier in this one had a good discussion on all this.
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?
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?
Do not confuse strength with durability.
And that's fine, if that's how you want your bike to ride
I do. I like it.
I like my nice supple tyres and flexy seatpost more.
Sweet, I was beginning to think that I'd imagined it all and it was all just marketing BS Bingo...
Nice bit of selective reading there 😉
Re-read Jameso's post, vertical flex in the rear end is, especially in the chain stays, negligible and lost in the noise of flex elsewhere, most notably top tube, seat tube and downtube. The rear end of a traditional double diamond frame is just too well triangulated to have much effect and is alway going to be overshadowed by the other bigger ones.
Ovalising tubes does effect the way the flex, and nobody would or could dispute that, but those chain stays are not what makes your PP so comfortable, it's all the other stuff!
I still think the biggest advantage that steel has is just how sexy it looks, especially on a hardtail with a big fork.
I'd suggest the Jones and PP rear stay ovalisation adds sideways stiffness but makes little (or less..) difference to vertical give since vertically it's a triangle, a small one at that on the PP.
I suppose it's not something many will have studied in any real depth, you've more experience of such things than most of us.
You raised a good point about triangulation of the rear end members on the PP too, the stays are at a reduced angle, due to where they meet the dropped TT/Seat tube, along with that "Transverse ovalisation" (do you like that one?) you [i]might[/i] get some sort of combined flex/vibration damping effect?
Lowering the Seat stays as PP have should also affect how the rear end deals with side loading and torque when leaned over, so is that 'more comfortable feeling' perhaps more lateral deflection, but again might that be slightly counteracted by the squashed stays?
Having looked at some images of the OKA they seem to have ovalised the Chain stay in the same way too, I'd think that should have more of an effect in terms of "Softening" the rear, you'd expect them to bend the Seat stay, adding say a full length curve or some 'S' bends, off of the tube's axis to make it bend slightly under compression (a'la Jones) but they haven't it's arrow straight...
It's difficult to see if its all part of a clever design, or just aesthetic, or something in between, either way the back end of that frame is not "Standard" in it's construction...
I still think the biggest advantage that steel has is just how sexy it looks, especially on a hardtail with a big fork.
Aha, someone has sussed the reality of life with a modern steel frame 😉
the CEN tests are just a fatigue test too, after all. If steel frames were failing it, what does that say for their durability?
Interestingly when the CEN (now ISO) tests came in the test for front end fatigue -the big fork lever test- broke a lot of steel bikes at first, steel bikes that in use generally outlasted the average pre-CEN alu frame many times over, most of those alu frames could pass the tests. One conclusion was that the loads x no of cycles of some CEN tests were fatiguing frames in a way that didn't represent real-world riding but the tests needed to take 12hrs not 12 years. It's simply a test of relative durability.
A lot of what I think has already been said above, but basically if a frame is well designed for purpose to which it'll be used, the actual material is down to personal choice and aesthetics.
Steel is stiffer than aluminium per volume; aluminium also fails catastrophically at the end of its fatigue life (especially the welds), which is why, in the '90s, it tended to be built into very stiff frames using large cross section tubes to prevent any flex. Frame manufacturers are a bit more savvy now, though, with how they use the materials; well engineered stays, bending uniformly along their length, are remarkably resilient. Hopefully, gone are the days of Cannondale head tubes coming undone on the trail!
For years, the industry made aluminium seem more 'high tech' when in fact it was just cheaper to manufacture a flash and gimmicky frame in aluminium. Some of us old gits will never fully trust aluminium as an investment, compared to something like a Pace RC127 in Reynolds 853, which is ironic as Pace always used to make frames out of Aluminium!
I've just renounced my steel fanboy club membership. I liked my 45650b, but not as much as I liked my 456 evo 2. I think the reason is because the seatstay arrangement on the evo did allow a bit of vertical compliance, whilst the burlier 45650b was way more stiff. The 45650b has cracked and I'm waiting on a warranty replacement.
In the meantime I did a bit of thinking and came to the conclusion that I was carrying a good 1-2 pounds of extra heft on the 45650b for the promise of a steel feel that was never going to be there on account of how 'built' steel frames tend to be - especially since CEN.
So now I have bought and built up a Dartmoor Primal 27.5 - although I have yet to take it on its maiden voyage. I reckon I might as well go back to chunkier aluminium to gain a weight advantage whilst not giving up anything in terms of comfort. Time will tell of course, but the Primal looks amazing!
As people were talking about FEA and compliance, I had a very quick go at modelling a chainstay (10 minutes all in, so [u]very[/u] basic!).
Modelled up a Columbus spirit stay (30x17 ellipse) loaded against either axis (stiff vs. compliant) and a 22.5 dia round stay (as it's the same amount of steel) and applied a 1kN load at 440mm from a fixed end.
Obviously this makes no allowances for seatstays, welding and seat-tube flex, but the displacement of the stays at the point of load were 37, 90 and 61mm respectively in the 3 cases.
Triangulation from the other tubes will obviously remove most of this, but there is clearly an effect to play with - I'll see if I can get my Y13 Engineering class to work on modelling the whole triangle later on!
I've read the scientific stuff with interest but, as most of us know, that plays a minimal part of a bike's "realness". It comes down to aesthetics, the rides (and company) you've had on a bike, it's colour, brand, price... a million things have a larger effect than millimeters of chainstay flex.
The first bike I ever, properly loved was a Zaskar. After that I went through a FS phase. We'll ignore that.
Since then, a few Alu FS'es but, on the whole, steel hard tails.
The best bike I've ever owned - and still do - is my 853 Inbred. It's a little too small for me but it just seems to respond in a way nothing else ever has. I really can't imagine a custom built frame suiting or fitting me any better. The 'regular' Inbred feels a little more dull and sluggish. I know this is comparing steel and steel but it does suggest that frame material makes a difference.
My current bike is a Dialled Alpine. I've no doubt that the steel feeling is killed by its sheer overbuiltness, but a nice Reynolds sticker is worth a few grams. Pleasingly narrow tubes too make it worth it. I recently enquired as to the cost of a tapered headtube being welded on. It was a bloody fortune and could never justify it. I'd happily fork over the money for a new BB shell or what have you to keep the bike running.
I nearly bought a Dartmoor Hornet. It was close to my home and the seller offered a ride on his local trails before stripping it. It isn't nice to look at with its enourmous diameter tubes and it felt harsh as hell. It felt cheap. I bought him a couple of pints having had a fun afternoon but the bike buzzed like a skateboard.
Nothing scientific there but I do believe steel is real. It makes better bikes. Better being entirely subjective, of course.