A thread is running regarding the possibilities to design and manufacture a steel hardtail in the UK elsewhere on this forum. It proved for an interesting read, especially because of the insights from the established steel builders. Reading this thread made me think about how the steel 'man in a shed' companies revived the steel mtb experience.

I think the revival in steel mtb's is quite unique to the UK, but when I started investigating how it took off, I could not easily find answers. I think it started with On One and their Guerrilla Marketing campaigns. However, what did this really entail? I would be interested to find out their story or other stories about these small companies. Can any of you remember how they started and what made them so popular?

Steel is real, man.

The revival of steel in the UK has little to do with men in sheds and much more to do with folk with a good idea maximising the manufacturing advantages that outsourcing to the Far East offers the Western manufacturer/distributor who can carve an effective market segment.

Fashion, trends, marketing opportunity, money making opportunity…

That's how.

Maybe its because, in Britain, having been at the forefront of the industrial revolution, there's still a certain nostalgia for the forgotten technology of the Paleoferric era.
(not with me though)

I think it started with On One and their Guerrilla Marketing campaigns.

Orange stand out for me as having done some excellent work over the years with the Clockwork and the P7 stands out for me as one of the first non race/recreation/"hammerhead" frames. I was helping out writing brochures for them when they started doing the P7, and it was great to see them moving from being very race-led like the rest of the industry and just building something for hammering, without it being too over built.

brant – Premier Member
moving from being very race-led like the rest of the industry and just building something for hammering

Never thought about it like that, its true that's what's so good about my 456.

Lots of us got into MTB just because we like messing around on bikes, coming from BMX and MTB was something you could jump ditches and ride around in the woods on, and not take 3 days to cycle to/from the woods..

It started with Orange, for sure. Well before everyone else.

Brant is being modest about his part in reviving steel hardtails, when the likes of Orange moved their focus onto the bouncy bikes.

Cy obviously deserves a mention for the longtravel hardtail thing.

Brant is being modest about his part in reviving steel hardtails, when the likes of Orange moved their focus onto the bouncy bikes.

Cy obviously deserves a mention for the longtravel hardtail thing.

Could you expand on how both did so? I know very little outside that Brant did very well with On One, but how did he do it? Also, when did Cy come in and start? Cheers!

Cy obviously deserves a mention for the longtravel hardtail thing.

DMR trailstar has been arround almost as long as the marzocchi z1 (1996), then when 5" freeride forks turned up, so did the trailstar LT. Then when people decided they wanted a trail bike rather than a freeride/jump bike they made the switchback.

Looking back, when I started MTBing seriously the switchback had only just come out (I remember seeing reviews in MBUK). On-one were making a niche 80mm/rigid singlespeed hardtail. My first memory of cotic was in a grouptest of small manufacturers bikes in MBR, the others were soem german company making knock off spesh enduro's, a dean Ti softail and a tallifer(sp?) IIRC. Maybe it was ahead of its time, but I don't remember it getting the glowing reviews it gets now. I don't know if anythings changed, but I distincly remember them looking a bit more noodley as well?

Orange didnt realy push things forward for a long while, the P7 was in the doldrums between being a heavy/reliable XC bike and the 140mm trail bike it is now.

Thats all in my memory of course, Dialled-Mike pointed out last time we had this dicussion that dialled had had prototypes/small runs of very similar bikes arround the same time as well.

Cy obviously deserves a mention for the longtravel hardtail thing.

what for introducing a "long travel hardtail" that you were advised not to use the then current long travel fork of choice the Z1 on?

There's an interesting interview with Brant in the new issue of Wideopen magazine:

http://wideopenmag.co.uk/

I didn't realise On-One started in 2000, part of me thought it was earlier than that.

DMR started in 1995 but didn't start doing frames until later IIRC.

Dialled Bikes started life by bringing out a couple of Ti frames did they not?

Yeah, DMR need to be in there as well for sure. Jumpy brands in general kept doing interesting things with steel when the mainstream had moved away from it a bit.

Hard to see this as an isolated British thing though, the Canadian/USA companies did a lot in parallel; Handjob, Blizzard, Explosif; it's a world market and a world of trails.

I didn't realise On-One started in 2000, part of me thought it was earlier than that.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Brant was designing stuff under the Planet-X banner prior to that? I'm sure I got my Compo in 2000, and think the Hammerhead and Jack Flash predate that. Maybe the Gimp as well, but not sure.

Not certain about anything now I've written that.

On-one 2000? I'll whois..

On-one : Registered on: 02-Feb-2000
Cotic : Registered on: 30-Mar-2002

I thought on-one started earlier as well.

Anyway… back in my youth it was all Clockwork, P7 and otherwise US brands, who were still strong in steel frames, or small UK builders like Dave Yates. Although my first mtb was a steel and glued lugged Dynatech. RSP, remember them… ….ahh…. misty eyed,.

The first Dialled Bikes prototype frame was made 2002 in the UK out of Reynolds 853 tubing to the geometry which eventually became the Kobe Ti geometry. But you're right Mr Agreeable that the first production frames were Kobe Ti and Morning Glory titanium frames in 2003.

Rider owned companies (or micro-brands as On-One, Cotic and Dialled Bikes used to be referred to in the early days) have been around in BMX for a lot longer than they have in mountain biking. My first inspiration was Scot Breithaupt at SE Racing. And then later Chris Moeller (S&M), Rick Moliterno (Standard Bykes) and James Shepherd (Homeless).

I've still got a steel and glued dynatech… although it ain't the main bike…

I remember the dyna techs….mine is still alive (after some rather serious surgery 🙁 )

My first proper MTB in 1996 was an Orange C16R so british-designed steel MTBs were all I knew. A mate had a P7, and as more "hardcore" bikes didn't really exist (at least, not at the price we could afford) we'd just ride stuff, jump them, even did a couple of DH races on them.

When it got broken when someone tried to steal it at uni, I replaced it with a Kona which I had a few years then stumbled on On-One selling off complete rigid Inbreds cheaply. Recognised Brant's name from MTB Pro, it seemed to be much like my old Orange only for slightly bigger forks. Bought it, really liked it, got some Revs which I ran wound down to 100mm, then wanted something a bit burlier so I could use all 130mm so bought a PA. Then another PA.

I might well be wrong, but waaaaay back in the dim and distant past (the 90s) most bikes were made from steel (CroMo) cos aluminium was more expensive and not as readily available (certainly in the grades suited to bike frames).

I also have a feeling that part of the rise of aluminium had a certain amount of marketing push behind it cos the tubes were "fatter" than the spindly steel ones and that pandered to the needs of mountain bikers who wanted their bikes to look more (dare I say it) masculine. I can also imagine that with the "demand" for aluminium frames bike manufacturers could make more profit (which suited them fine).

I don't think that the steel revival is limited just to the UK but guys like Brant and Cy were able to fulfill/exploit a niche in the market that the bigger boys had (to some extent) ignored.

Pondering over this a little longer I had another idea too. Quite possibly a lot of the folks who got into mountain biking in the 90s (during the "steel" era then drifted off and had kids etc. etc. and came back to riding and wanted something with the same feel as the bikes they rode in their youth but with a geometry to match the way that riding had developed in the intervening years.

In Great Britain we invented the bike, and are a great cycling nation.

We are also early adopters of one speed and the rebirth of fixed, and this rebirth of steel.

Back-lash… I think its also due to the mainstream brands going too far in the hard and fast direction of design. They made frames so stiff, you kind of need suspension, partly to cure a problem their stiff designs created. Solving a problem that existed less with steel.

Very few people race. Winning races will help sell bikes, but a dead light, stiff, multi geared, low bar, bike is of little use to me in the real world.

Size… the market is getting bigger, so there is room for steel… and carbon, and alloy, and ti… and even bamboo.

Internet… its incredibly easy to start a business nowadays with the internet. Look at singular cycles (and myself)… great bikes doing well in their niche. 15 years ago it probably would not be possible without a great big pile of cash to kick you off.

and finally… steel is bloody great stuff to make a bike from.

My DynaTech got sold to buy a Dave Yates Diablo. I can't for the life of me remember what it was called, but it was the XT equipped one, because the Campagnolo equipped models were even heavier. Remember those, Campag mtb groupsets?!

I think I need to listen to some 80s music now…

charlie the bikemonger – Member

They made frames so stiff, you kind of need suspension, partly to cure a problem their stiff designs created. Solving a problem that existed less with steel.

Not that what you say isn't true , but it's worth noting that most aluminium alloys have a dreadful fatigue problem that steel does not – you have to make an aluminium alloy frame really stiff to stop it from dying of fatigue unacceptably early. This means that you can design the frame to be stressed under the fatigue threshold and potentially it will last for ever, and by very comfy.

Although other steels designers have just wanted to make mega stiff mega tough bikes (like jump bikes and really burly stuff) and have used the fact that steel is 3 x stiffer than aluminium and a lot tougher to make forth bridge like frames.

I think a big worry with the CEN testing is that its too harsh and the nice steel frames we have now will have to be too stiff in order to pass and we will loose something..

This means that you can design the frame to be stressed under the fatigue threshold and potentially it will last for ever, and by very comfy.

Certainly no steel frames I know use so much steel, or such high strength steel, that you're getting to those levels.
It is true that steel does exhibit fatigue limit curves which suggest infinite life for a certain level of load, but bicycle frames, certainly high performance lightweight bicycle frames, are stressed in well above the fatigue limit.

I think a big worry with the CEN testing is that its too harsh and the nice steel frames we have now will have to be too stiff in order to pass and we will loose something..

Quite the opposite certainly for (if I can be so bold) the "intellegently designed" CEN passes – such as our Blue Pig and the Cotic's… We've actually built in MORE flex and compliance to spread stress throughout the chassis.

I'm starting to think there's a bit of a theme here to these "man in a shed designing steel bikes" companies – none of them deal exclusively in steel. If the bloke above's chronology is correct, Brant was designing alu bikes before steel ones, and I know as many people who've bought Scandals as Inbreds. DMR have had a separate and very successful line of alu frames, under the Kinesis brand, for years. Cotic even came out with an alu full susser.

Also, don't forget that for every Cotic or On-One, there's a Pastey or a Pipedream. UK-designed steel frames aren't exactly a consumer phenomenon, whatever impression this place may give you.

Pondering over this a little longer I had another idea too. Quite possibly a lot of the folks who got into mountain biking in the 90s (during the "steel" era then drifted off and had kids etc. etc. and came back to riding and wanted something with the same feel as the bikes they rode in their youth but with a geometry to match the way that riding had developed in the intervening years.

Well said! I'm currently lusting after something with 853 tubing that is "British" in its heritage. The Pace 104 and Cotic Soul fill this need very well.

Edited to add that I grew up with an Explosif and my mate had a Cloclwork, thus we got used to riding bikes with that feel.

Ahh well Brant that where my knowledge ends and yours begins, I'm a metallurgist, and have never designed a bike. I guess I was just assuming that's what you all did this as everyone talks about steel springyness/comfort compared to aluminium. The only way you can do that is take advantage of steels better fatigue performance – ok not down to endurance threshold but steels generally perform better across the stress range. I could post a few S-N curves if you want to see them.

brant – Premier Member
We've actually built in MORE flex and compliance to spread stress throughout the chassis.

I assume the MMMbop passed the CEN testing? How much flex is there in that frame then?

Oh god, not a relative merits of steel/ti/alu thread. Please. No.

kelvin – Premier Member

Oh god, not a relative merits of steel/ti/alu thread. Please. No.

Simple answer – personal preference.

"I think a big worry with the CEN testing is that its too harsh and the nice steel frames we have now will have to be too stiff in order to pass and we will loose something..
Quite the opposite certainly for (if I can be so bold) the "intellegently designed" CEN passes – such as our Blue Pig and the Cotic's…"

– add to the list the classic 456 and summer season 456 which both sailed through cen – , passing CEN with a solid steel fork at a 545mm Axle to Crown measurement – one of the toughest tests , not sure how many hardtails are passing cen this standard , intelligently designed ones or otherwise .
Of course hats off to Brant as the 456 was of course intellegently designed right from the very start

ps – i think on-one was circa 1999 , trademark registration date is not always business start date, and of course on-one as a non bike name was really way back in the day with the original mad pads circa nemba early 90s , maybe 1992 .

Cotic also in a way evolved courtesy of brant and on-one / planet x , as the first cotics were produced for cy by planet x in our steel framebuilder in Taiwan , and arrived in completely the wrong colour a shocking pink instead of grey , and the framebuilder welded in the rear seatstay upside down in the 16 inch frames causing a mini recall of the 16s !

not 'intelligently built' then.