Just starting to look around for a new race bike for next year, got my 3rd Cat on the commute this year and said if I got it and enjoyed the racing I'd splash out on a new one for 2012.
Always had a carbon Canyon Ultimate in mind, possibly a Rose but the Canyons slightly ahead.
Don't want this to be the standard carbon/steel debate but do you think you'd be much slower on a Bob Jackson / Mercian etc?
Looking to get Cat2 next year so need all the help I can get, but the steel road bike just looks like it'd age better, I'd like to keep it for the next 10years or so (standards allowing) and race the hell out of it then retire it onto the commute if my knees are still working.
Don't want this to be the standard carbon/steel debate
Silly question to ask in that case. The question being why do you think a carbon bike won't last 10 years?
Why is steel going to last longer? I would be interested to hear reasons why not to go carbon because I cannot think of one.
I think carbon would last, although over that time it's bound to take a tumble/get the boot slammed on it/slide down the corner of the wall at the cafe. I'm guessing over that life span I'd prefer to be going steel and not be to concerned with a ding in the top tube in a few years time.
Could do with checking the frame-to-frame weight differences I 'spose.
new rose alu looks good wih di2 and cosmic carbones for 2300
steel will be easier to recycle
Just buy some VFM generic carbon frame so that you don't get all upset when you crash your 6 month waiting list hand built steel frame. Which will happen if you ever race at Hillingdon.
for a race bike, i see no reason at all to go steel 'if you want all the help you can get'. Carbon will almost certainly be stiffer and lighter.
I've a 10 year old Scott Strike carbon full sus bike which had a hard life, though is now just not ridden for one reason or another, but it's absolutely fine, much better nick than younger steel frames which have dents & lost most of their paint......
Rose's £1600 bike gets good wrietups.
Condor do a steel racer that's stiff enough, but (IMO) it just looks like a cheep aly frame.
Anythign skinny and steel (i.e. with the properties of a 'good' steel frame) is going to be flexy.
Why not aluminium? I've a 10year old cannondale CAAD5 frame, looks battered and could do with a respray but hasn't crack'd'n'fail'd like I was told at the time it would do.
Still use my 2004 (I think it is) Madone SL as my 'nice' road bike, that's knocking 8 years old. Whilst I don't doubt that modern road bikes are far superior I still love riding it, it's incomparable to the 2010 Allez I commute on, comfy, light, stiff. It's been ridden through winter for many of the years I've owned it. It probably gets cleaned every 6 months, but it's a great bike! Quite like it to break so I can get a new Madone on warranty.
I'd go carbon all the way. Trek recycle carbon, so ooOOoo's comment is negated.
If you're a clumsy oaf and these are likely:
take a tumble/get the boot slammed on it/slide down the corner of the wall at the cafe
Then you should probably avoid cycling altogether, in fact, you should probably avoid going outside unsupervised.
Because it's easier to repair.Why is steel going to last longer?
.
I've gone off carbon, having broken 3 carbon XC bikes in 2 years. My next MTB will be Titanium.
Would consider carbon for a time-trial bike as it's shape does matter and carbon have more interesting shapes, and of course TT bikes don't take much abuse.
On balance, I think Ti for next road bike too, as I do tend to keep them a while. Current one is aluminium and over a decade old.
do you think you'd be much slower on a Bob Jackson / Mercian
Yes. Would still prefer one over a carbon bike though. It's just about priorities.
I can't really see any reason to ditch carbon for steel; I have two race bikes one is carbon, but the other is an 04 alu principia. I did pick up a ti frame to replace the principia, but found the later more 'snappy' and just felt better for racing. I think a lot of folk overlook alu frames, but a well made one holds it's own with decent carbon frames and is lighter than steel.
Because it's easier to repair.
Heat treatments on the sort of high end thin walled steel frame which is presumably what you'd consider instead of carbon, and these pictures suggests it's nowhere near as clearcut as that:
[img]
[/img] [img] 
[/img]http://www.carboncyclerepairs.co.uk/racing-bike-repairs_2.html
On balance, I think Ti for next road bike too, as I do tend to keep them a while. Current one is aluminium and over a decade old.
My 13yo carbon one is now relegated to use on the turbo as I got a new carbon one. Oh, and that got a damaged chainstay (the sort of thing some carbon sceptics would consider terminal damage) about 11 years ago.
If you think a ti bike is a bike for life maybe you should check out some of the threads about broken ones on here.
I've gone off carbon, having broken 3 carbon XC bikes in 2 years. My next MTB will be Titanium.
Would consider carbon for a time-trial bike as it's shape does matter and carbon have more interesting shapes, and of course TT bikes don't take much abuse.
On balance, I think Ti for next road bike too, as I do tend to keep them a while. Current one is aluminium and over a decade old.
And on the flip side, i've broke 2 titanium bikes, 1 steel bike, 3 aluminum bikes and 0 carbon bikes.
Now have 3 carbon bikes and 1 aluminum bike
And at least one of your carbon frames didn't break because it was carbon, the poor placement of the bottle bosses meant your wore through the downtube, not really the fault of the material surely!?
Thanks all, should have really re-phrased the question as 'Would you still race steel' or something,maybe.
Easier to just get both right? I'll get both.
steel tubes are skinny, and skinny = aero.
therefore; steel frames are faster.
and it goes 'ping!' when you tap it, which sounds nice.
stupid double post.
Had carbon seat post shatter during a ride. Very scary! Next road bike will probably be Ti.
I am new to mtb and have basic Trek 6500 hardtail. Would love a fancy bike but am put off carbon given my experiences on the road. The frightening thing for me is not knowing that there is a problem until you get a complete failure. Carbon mtb must be a helluva lot stronger than roadies. But how do they take the punishment?
I'd race steel if I had no other choice, otherwise at worst I'd go Ti but preference would be carbon...
Isn't the life expectancy of stuff got more to do with how its made than what its made from??
Any race frame will be made of the bare minimum of material won't it? whatever that material is?
Easier to just get both right? I'll get both.
Why? What advantage is the steel bike giving you over the carbon one (unless you're just doing the correct number of bikes equation)?
Alu for best VFM when racing - CAAD 9 or 10, Canyon, whatever. I recently picked up a Principia Rex Pro with 9 spd dura ace for £600. Alu, stiff, light. I'm never going to do a 600km audax on it but it's built for going fast, not for comfort. Balls to steel and balls to carbon when you can get equally stiff/light for less cash with an alu race frame. Spend the difference on spare wheels/fork/mech etc. for that first crash 😉
Still riding a 1999 carbon trek as my winter road bike. I've killed steel and alloy...
STeel = cool
CArbon = for noobs
THREAD CLOSED
Same equipment, wheels and forks.
You really think that steel is going to be slower than carbon. As if it will make a difference. Doubt it....oooooooo it will be 0.0002 secs slower or 1 watt less power. Just get out training more that's what wins races not if it's steel or carbon.
home made CArbon parts = for noobs
FTFY
My summer bike is a nice carbon c59... But I would not dare to do a London crit on it!
Steel race bikes for crits. There are tumbles. Ride in a race what ever you are comfortable replacing if broken. I will buy a new steel condor when they are released. Same geo as a leggero. 1200quid.
I will race the colnago to but only on the open roads.
Tin worth considering as they have a new super stiff ti frame out. It is 5k for a frame tho.
I think " the old git" ditched cabon on the basis that he was told not to ride a carbon bike after a crash, even though he could see no damage.
He reconned with steel damage would be visible and repairable
I don't race but ride an alu Kinesis (KR 510). It's nice and stiff and comfy enough for me, the only carbon bits are the seat stays. I've never ridden a fully carbon road bike for long enough to warrant comparison but I like it 🙂
I really should have thought more about the question than the bored lunchtime post earlier!
Loads of good info above, I'm riding ali at the moment, no reason not to go with that again. 'Only race what you can replace' makes a lot of sense.
Ta.
I love steel bikes, and got my 3rd cat a few years ago on a Colnago master x-light. Reality is, nooooooooooooobody races on steel - there is some ally at the lower cats but thereonup its all carbon, and its not just for fashion. Trust me, if you compete, go carbon, its just so fast,fast, fast.
Why are Condor making steel race bikes if its such a bad idea?
And they have been winning Elite races on them!
Gillert won Amstel Gold on an ali bike, so don't write it off
Why are Condor making steel race bikes if its such a bad idea?
And they have been winning Elite races on them!
There'll always be a market for steel / handbuilt exotica or even mid-range stuff. Some people just like it and not everyone who buys a road bike races.
And the Elite guys sponsored by Condor (Rapha - Condor - Sharp) are all on carbon.
My road bike is alu but it weighs less than 17lb which is lighter than a lot of cheaper carbon bikes and it still holds its own. I won a 2/3/4 crit a few months ago on it actually and I've had some reasonable results in road races and other crits.
Ti does break - been there.... broken aluminium too but never a steel frame - not tried carbon yet.
Reckon a steel frame is for the long haul as easier to weld / swop a tube out / add braze ons etc but for racing - probably go aluminium / carbon and replace when they age / get damaged
paul
Road Race Bikes are all dangerous to the rider, no matter what substance they are made of.
I've seen broken Ti road bikes.
I've seen broken Alu road bikes.
I've seen broken Carbon road bikes.
Can't remember seeing a broken steel one ....possibly because there are so few about!!!!!!
Reckon a steel frame is for the long haul as easier to weld / swop a tube out / add braze ons etc but for racing - probably go aluminium / carbon and replace when they age / get damaged
See http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/road-race-bikes-anyone-ditched-carbon#post-3075229
I'll put my 2p in, but I know people will disagree and/or call me an idiot.
It's also down to how you ride. If you're a sprinter like me then having a carbon frame is good, but arguably alu would be better as it's probably less flexy.
That being said my current alu frame flexes horrendously when I put the power down (to the point where the wheels start to rub). Yet I'm building up a carbon Dolan at the moment for next season, but I like to sell up and get a new bike per season so if it doesn't work out its only one season.
If you're a spinner then carbon is great/fine and dandy.
If you're a sprinter like me then having a carbon frame is good, but arguably alu would be better as it's probably less flexy.
You can build carbon any way you want to make it stiff or compliant.
Chris Hoy seems to get by fine on a carbon bike and I'm guessing he puts out more power than you do. 😉
^ WHS. Also, go find an old Alan if you think aluminium bikes are inherently stiff 😉
if you want a steel race bike then don't go for a heavy lugged stovepipe mercian or BJ but get something oversize from the likes of rourke, enigma or if you can stretch the budget a pegoretti or zullo.
there are a few people racing the hillingdon/crystal palace races on steel frames but they are of the modern lightweight oversize type.
He does, but cheaper carbon frames seem to have this problem and I imagine he doesnt use the cheap frames and infact probably has a more custom frame.
Not all of them are riding Leggero's...
Did you see the tour or britian? And the IG index crits?
TDF bikes arenot allowed to weigh less than 6.8kg which can be achieved with any of the mentioned frame materials with lightweight components bolted on . The fact that all the pros ride carbon tells you what is the best material performance wise . Given that most carbon frames from the big manufacturers come with a good warranty I think you would be foolish to go for anything else .
i ride and race a steel frame, when i'm riding i love my steel frame, when i'm racing i wish i had a carbon one
...The fact that all the pros ride carbon tells you what is the best material performance wise...
nah, a carbon frame can have a much more surface area for logos - that's all.
it's all about branding/sponsorship, bigger logos are better, so the pros ride CFRP frames.
[img] 
[/img]
see?
(but you wouldn't if he was riding a skinny steel/ti frame)
The fact that all the pros ride carbon tells you what is the best material performance wise
Er NO! the pro's ride what they are TOLD/PAID to ride, there is very little choice in that!
i ride and race a steel frame, when i'm riding i love my steel frame, when i'm racing i wish i had a carbon one
Do you REALLY think you would notice the difference?? Material choice is secondary to build and fit, far more performance differences in those two than what you build it out of!
We're not talking about Pros here tho are we. Just your average jo bloggs.
I admit i have a high end carbon race bike but... I also own a steel race bike i would race at places like crystal palace and other town centre crits. You want somthin you don't mind crashing that you can see damage.
Personally i will be buying one of these soon just for crit racing...
http://www.condorcycles.com/Frame/10650-Condor-Super-Acciaio-Frameset/flypage.tpl.html