Forum menu
Even if the frames are a little heavier these days, you could build up an XC race bike around a steel frame to a lighter weight than the Kona at the beginning of the thread.
The problem is why would you? A well designed and built alu or carbon frame will be lighter without any loss of strength. So most steel frames are trail/AM or something more burly, where the extra weight doesn't matter so much. They can still break, I've bent and cracked a variety of steel frames in a variety of places, they are easier to repair than alu for sure and to some extent carbon, but again, for a frame that's 1-2lb heavier you're paying the same amount - this is down to the limitations of the material (a lighter frame would dent - hence the skinnier more dent resistant tubes are typical for steel and diminishing returns as you go to higher strength steels before you even start worrying about weldability).
"nice" steel just isn't worth it in any functional sense. Aluminium and carbon fibre are now pretty affordable. If you like the ride of steel, it's a niche thing - and these days bikes are required to be more durable which can only be a good thing.
No rust on mine….it's stainless!
Ah, oh well, the Chloride stress corrosion cracking will get you then... 😉
No rust on mine….it's stainless!
Ah, oh well, the Chloride stress corrosion cracking will get you then...
Haha, you got me there! 😀
if that had been a carbon frame, I doubt I'd be writing this
But a good carbon frame would be lighter than the steel and not break at all.
You're trying to show how durable steel frames are by listing a load of times they've broken?
Do Greipel or Cav break carbon frames all the time?
steel frames... I bent one by shifting into the wrong gear...
🙂
Hardcore!
Do Greipel or Cav break carbon frames all the time?
They certainly won't be riding them again after they've crashed……they'll be going in the bin!
As would any steel or alu frame they rode / crashed. They are a pro team, I doubt they use the same air in their tyres twice.
I think that market for steel has changed dramatically. It was for a price point compared to aluminium or for high end cross country bikes. Now they are for the feel/ride, not because they are cheaper and certainly not racing. I've still got my Ritchey P20, but I never ride it as it doesn't offer anything over my Cotic Soul or cyclocross.
The P20 flexes, it almost feels like the rear turns in after the front. It's not a problem just a characteristic. The soul is much sharper handling but still rides exceptionally well.
I doubt they use the same air in their tyres twice.
TBH I don't think I do either 🙂
steel frames... I bent one by shifting into the wrong gear...
Not really that impressive, plenty of examples of destroyed carbon rear triangles from jammed chains/mech's too.
Carbon is undoubtedly stronger on a strength/weight basis, carbon DH bikes (sans shock) weigh about the same as Genesis hardtails!
It all depends on the desired outcome though, in bike tubes the limiting factor is usually stiffness not strength (and aluminium, steel or carbon tube of the required stiffness will all be strong enough, it's just the carbon will be by far the strongest and the steel the heaviest). But, in bike frames you've got other constraints, like resistance to impacts, or tube size constraints which is why steel manages to hold it's own. You could build much lighter carbon or aluminium frames, but they'd flex (and thus fatigue) and dent even if you didn't kill them in a crash.
Cy from Cotic did a good lecture at Sheffield Uni explaining why a steel seatube is the actually superior to the alternatives because seatubes are a fixed diameter (31.6mm) so the advantage of being able to build huge tubes of carbon/aluminium isn't there (hydroforming, squoval and other seatube shapes aside).
Superior how? There are bikes that are lighter and stronger than steel...? So it would seem that the seat-tube issue has been worked around?
The OP needs a drop bar steel gravel bike with a set of 650b wheels in.
Superior how? There are bikes that are lighter and stronger than steel...? So it would seem that the seat-tube issue has been worked around?
If you take a steel seatube, an aluminium seatube, and a carbon seatube, all of the same internal diameter and with appropriate wall thicknesses. And put a pivot on it and try and twist the tube, the steel one will be stiffest without a weight penalty.
You could make an aluminium or carbon one stiffer for the same weight (or lighter for the same stiffness) if the size isn't restricted (e.g. Orange and their huge downtunbes and pivots), but as seatposts are (mostly) 27.2, 30.9 or 31.6mm you can't really deviate that much.
Yes but look at a carbon bike, the tubes are huge. So they've clearly figured out something because the bikes are indeed larger tubed and lighter.
Not really that impressive
Good job nobody claimed as much, then, eh...
tang - Member
... a drop bar steel gravel bike with a set of 650b wheels in.
[img] 
[/img]
There used to be competitive XC hardtails made of steel,
Only because carbon bikes either weren't available or were so expensive as to be unobtainable.
If you take a steel seatube, an aluminium seatube, and a carbon seatube, all of the same internal diameter and with appropriate wall thicknesses. And put a pivot on it and try and twist the tube, the steel one will be stiffest without a weight penalty.You could make an aluminium or carbon one stiffer for the same weight (or lighter for the same stiffness) if the size isn't restricted (e.g. Orange and their huge downtunbes and pivots), but as seatposts are (mostly) 27.2, 30.9 or 31.6mm you can't really deviate that much.
I doubt this but even assuming it is true then it's quite selective- you don't need stiffness on a seat tube in a ht and a full sus can have features added away from the internal diameter to give whatever stiffness you feel you need for a pivot mount.
Steel is Real demo day on October 29th :
you don't need stiffness on a seat tube in a ht
why - surely you need some stability against the forces put on the BB ?
you don't need stiffness on a seat tube in a ht
why - surely you need some stability against the forces put on the BB ?
Luckily there are 3 other tubes going into the bb.
Steel mountain bikes peaked with the Fat Chance Yo Eddy, and not because of the paint job.
You'd have to convince a custom builder to build anything like it now.
My large 650b Cotic Soul builds up into a 26.5lb bike with pedals on, with no ti or carbon anywhere, and deore brakes, slx 2x drivetrain, 2.3" front tyre, not particularly light wheelset.
So nothing flashy. Not far off what you're on about?
Still absolutely in love with my '99 Dekerf Generation. Only medium-magic 631, but Mr Dekerf sprinkled something special in there. Always puts a smile on my face. I've got some other steel frames, none of them have that zing that people associate with steel frames like the Dekerf has.
Love my Genesis. It's had a few modifications, weighs only 20 lbs, and is a singlespeed. But it's a great ride.
Only it's mother could love it 😉
[img] 
?oh=0dec3403181f62df200fb595cf94464d&oe=5A3FDA80[/img]
Only it's mother could love it
Actually, I think that looks rather nice!
Once we brexit and drop all these daft EU safety standards a whole new generation of shed engineers will be able to design and build some crazy steel bikes
They can now. You can have custom whatever you like. It's production bikes that need to be CEN tested.
Yo, Ned.
Want another rescue job? I have a Marin Bearsomethingorother in one of my sheds that looks to be around your size. Complete bike but the seatpost was stuck and someone has made a right mess of it. Haven't the time to get it sorted and no motivation as it's not really any good to me due to the size.
Hey teasel,
I've already got one on the backburner, thanks!
I was given a [url= http://forums.mtbr.com/vintage-retro-classic/official-bontrager-thread-3836-14.html#post13351448 ]'98 Privateer [/url] in decent nick, went on pinkbike to look for rigid forks, got distracted, bought a Jones spaceframe full build... Privateer is a project for next summer, maybe!
Once we brexit and drop all these daft EU safety standards a whole new generation of shed engineers will be able to design and build some crazy steel bikes
No need for Brexit - that is the whole point of custom. Absolutely no point making a 10th percentile person ride a frame strong enough for a 90th percentile. I think you'll find Brexit just means all the current EU regulations get blanket copied into our regs (just without the future oversight, discussion and consensus revisions to improve the regs- what a great idea......).
I've made a couple of small kid's 26ers that with just ONE butted tube (everything else plain gauge) that are still well over 1lb lighter than a 14" CEN Inbred of similar overall dimensions (made from "butted DN6" Tubing). That is a direct comparison on the same scales (my eldest lad has the Inbred for bashing around skills practice).
I don't think all modern steel frames are rubbish. I've ridden/owned a lot. Lots and lots. People mention the Soul and weirdly that was one of the ones I look back on and just didn't gel with it. Thought it was a really dull frame to ride. In comparison I had an early Inbred at the same time and that felt much more springy/classic steel ride than the Cotic. Also had a Dialled Love/Hate which felt like it was made of scaffolding tubes (worst riding hardtail I've ever owned). By far and away the best was a Curtis S1. Felt exactly like what those old pre-CEN top end steel frames from the early 90s felt like. Light, springy almost as if it had a bit of suspension travel. Was a perfect frame.
No worries, Ned.
Nice to see the Randonneur in a mucky situation. Love the way you share the provenance, too. 🙂
Well, why not? It's a nice story! 😀
I can't help but be a bit miffed at modern steel, I appreciate it's all come from European CEN changes, but we just seem leagues behind where we were 20+ years ago. It feels like we've fixed something that wasn't broken.
When you say "leagues behind", can you expand on this? If you're just referring to weight, then perhaps you are right - but I would argue that riders on modern steel HTs are likely to be riding much more aggressive stuff that people would have 20 years ago and that some of this extra poundage is well justified. I would also argue that the modern geometries are certainly a big step forward and combine it with 1x drivetrains with boost spacing, disc brakes, bolt through axles, dropper posts etc, I would say that this more than offsets the modest frame weight increases.
I only mention it as there seemed to be a mass of front page articles on modern steel at the moment. The Shands look nice I'll admit, and they're only 250g heavier than a 20 year old bike, with a £1200 price tag.
Bear in mind too that £1200 today would have been £700 back in 1997 - probably not far off what you'd have paid for a decent spec steel HT back then.
And, on the plus side, you now have a whole new choice in super-light carbon bikes which will be both stronger and lighter (and way more expensive!) than their 1997 equivalents. Something like the Scott Scale 900 SL which weighs just over 19lb (and costs £8k, tbf!). The frame from this bike weighs just 1.8lb, half of what the Kona did back in 1997!
Meh. My modern steel HT is ace and probably the best HT I've ever had. Having ridden the early 90's and still having a 1992 Clockwork, which I love, I don't find the modern one any less lively. It's probably down to suss and big tyres replacing frame compliance but my new one is a comfy bike.
Best thing the industry ever did was stop being so obsessed with low weight.
My Sanderson was teh brilliant bike!
Long, lowish and not slack. Comfy and spiongy. A really great bike.
It was pre all the new standards mind....and is 2010 'Modern'?