Steel bikes going against the curve

That Stanton always gets me….truly beautiful and dangerous for my credit card…stop it!

Did we admire the lovely custom paintjob on this Starling yet?

Sorry but thats BS, Stoner loved the carbon frame and rated it over the steel bike – Rossi came along and wrecked it.

The reason the Ducati is fickle isnt because of the frame material, its the large 90 degree v4 that places the weight too far back. They wont scrap the design because it gives the bike a similar sound to their ubiqitous v2s. Hence they were the first to introduce the big canards in an effort to redress the issues with weight distribution.

Suzuki also used a 90 degree v4 until recently and it was regarded as a great handling bike but lacking in throttle control and power….Honda also managed to position their v5 and now v4 in their frames perfectly adequately too….you can’t blame Ducati’s engine layout for the initial failure of their carbon machines.

Stoner was an outlier, nobody else achieved anything like that success on the Ducati despite the firm going through riders at an astonishing rate and flooding the grid with satellite bikes.
Stoner also despaired at times at the lack of front end feel despite his success, often stating the bike gave no warning before crashing, famously on the warm up lap in a race I can’t now recall the date of!
It was also so fickle it would only work on Bridgestone’s tyres, when the control Michelin came into force the frame’s limitations reared its ugly head again and nobody could get it to work for literally years….carbon is as limited as any other material and despite the massive R&D budget of Philip Morris tobacco bankrolling the Ducati effort in MotoGP.

Also isnt the Panigale a frameleas design, a bike that certainly has no issues with feedback.

Loving that custom paint job on the Starling. It seems like the main 2 companies for full suss steel are cotic and starling but hopefully their popularity grows a little as I’m curious to see what other designers’ ideas of no frills, simple yet effective frames are like.

I love the look of the raw commencal and airdrop frames with black logos so I wonder if either company would consider throwing just the protective frame coating on with some extra cash on the side…

http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/08

Because they had a better, smaller 90 degree v4 in the first place!

Check out Stoners most recent comments on the carbon machine.

kraken – have a butcher’s at the top pic on here… https://dirtmountainbike.com/features/interviews/steel-new-blueprint.html

Maybe we should stop the comparisons with motorbikes, they’re bigger, heavier, have to deal with a lot more power, delivered in a different way, and the dynamic forces on them are somewhat different, the only real similarities being the running on a pair of inline wheels. What’s relevant to moto isn’t necessarily relevant to push bikes.

Having said that it is as much about personal preference and compromises, you can make a good bike (moto or meat-powered) using whatever material you choose, it will have pros and cons, ups and downs regardless and to think that one material is ‘better’ in all cases is missing the point entirely.

http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/08/01/technical-analysis-90-degree-v-four-engine-motogp-racing-technology

Sorry, incorrect link.

Carbon and Alumium are better though in a full suspension application, theyre lighter materials and you can design in the same amount of lateral flex and likely twist and vertical flex if you really wanted to.

chakaping, I saw that article which in part inspired me to start this thread but only glanced it and assumed it was a frame before the finishing/painting stages. I imagine then that like a lot of the Starling frame you can request a certain colour within certain limits, I like the idea of this custom type compared to Cotic’s more traditional sales strategy however obviously Cy can produce a much higher quantity of frames/bikes

The Panigale is monocoque aluminium, certainly easier/cheaper to manufacture and more familiar in feel for average riders than the carbon airbox MotoGP derived idea.
Carbon is just another material, I don’t dislike it, I just object to the evangelical move towards it when it’s limitations have been visible in other arenas for so long.

deviant – Member
…Stoner was an outlier, nobody else achieved anything like that success on the Ducati despite the firm going through riders at an astonishing rate and flooding the grid with satellite bikes…

Stoner was more alien that even the usual aliens on the MotoGP grid.

I’d love to have seen him up against Marquez.

That Stanton always gets me….truly beautiful and dangerous for my credit card…stop it!

They ride well too! Loved mine.

The new Slackline is bloody brilliant; a bit less gnarr bit a tad easier to ride.

I don’t get what the chat about motorbikes has to do with push bikes either.

That Starling to my eyes looks dreadful, at least to give Cotic their due they make decent looking bikes.

People talk about stainless steel, but are there any mtbs being built in it? Even stainless steel road bikes seem rare as hens teeth, probably because it is expensive with little positives.

Because what happens in MTBing tends to follow a path motorbikes took years earlier….disc brakes, suspension, hydraulics, bigger tyres, carbon, wide bars etc etc…..not always for the best in my opinion.

KTM use steel in their Moto3 bike frames and I think they’re using it in both the Moto2 and MotoGP bike frames as well.

That Stanton’s lush. The line through the top tube into the seat stays is just right.

Because what happens in MTBing tends to follow a path motorbikes took years earlier….disc brakes, suspension, hydraulics, bigger tyres, carbon, wide bars etc etc..

You could say most of the same about cars too though, no?

Hydraulic brakes, suspension and wide bars are a negative?

You know there are forums for CXera right?

I have a Reynolds 931 stainless steel hardtail 29er. It is a little flexible but is incredibly comfortable for my older bones and inspires confidence. It is my favorite bike for general trail riding.

It was a one off prototype that didn’t get taken further. It would have been very expensive

That Starling to my eyes looks dreadful, at least to give Cotic their due they make decent looking bikes.

Agreed, on the first part at least. There are still a lot of ‘man in the shed’ features on the Coptic FS bikes I’ve seen.

Having seen a Starling in the flesh, it looks like something I made in my shed. That is not a compliment. Also the bike was welded on the piss.

Niche for the sake of being niche.

on the flip side a guy in our club has just got a swoop. Its very nice. But i know hes had / going to have issues with shock tune etc. as you say before its all part of the development.

However the rear cable routing across that pivot on the rocket is unforgivable imo. what were you thinking cy? ruins an otherwise purchase!

That Starling to my eyes looks dreadful

Having seen a Starling in the flesh, it looks like something I made in my shed. That is not a compliment. Also the bike was welded on the piss.[/quote]

Having also seen one in the flesh I thought it looked very well put together with a lot of attention to detail and way better than some mass produced stuff I’ve seen. I did not however have the opportunity to take it apart and measure/jig it to check alignment so I’ll have to defer to your experience on that one.

I thought it looked really nice, eye of the beholder and all that, it’d be boring if there was only one type of ‘correct’ looking bike for everyone.

I haven’t had a chance to ride one yet either, maybe I will at some point and ultimately I’m just as interested in the way things ride as I am about how they look.

andybrad, what issues with the shock tune do you mean? Is it an odd stroke/length? A big downside to these shed type builds is that a lot are very new so have issues but the kinks are ironed out eventually. I agree with the god awful cable routing on the rocket though, could look so much cleaner

I like the industrial look of the Starling I suppose, always preferred the no nonsense function over form look for something like a bike. The little touches like the bird silhouettes on the head tube brace are a nice touch though

A big downside to these shed type builds is that a lot are very new so have issues but the kinks are ironed out eventually

true, the test and development might not be as extensive and include as many different riders, but isn’t that offset to some degree by the ability to make rapid in-life changes, and build new test frames much quicker than batch prototyping, or slower turn around on on-offs from the far east?

swings, roundabouts and all that…

Shock is a standard 216 x 63 (M/L Tune) – the travel is pretty linear and the shock he’s got is a monarch debonair rc3 (its what I’d bought initially to put on my starling)

shouldnt be too hard to get it set up “right” – mojo have set my X2 up based on the work they did with the frame, so if we can work out how best to replicate the settings to the monarch, it’ll be fine

Except any vertical flex in the frame is completely overwhelmed by the flex in the tyres – and 1psi difference in tyre pressure makes far more difference to the ride comfort than the difference between the stiffest and flexiest frame. So comfort due to vertical flex in the frame is fundamentally irrelevant (as discussed, there are other things which do make a difference like seatpost flex).

Yes there is a difference in feel – that’s down to sideways flex of the frame (and not necessarily characteristic of a particular material – that’s also down to design).

aracer – Member

Except any vertical flex in the frame is completely overwhelmed by the flex in the tyres – and 1psi difference in tyre pressure makes far more difference to the ride comfort than the difference between the stiffest and flexiest frame

Well now. I thought this too but I discovered it’s not so simple, when I went from a rigid XC bike to a rigid fatbike. Same controls, same bars, 2.3 to 4.0 tyre which you’d think would obliterate any other difference, but suddenly I had terrible wrist fatigue. Ended up fitting a really soft bar to alleviate it.

And thinking about it, I went from an Mmmbop to a Ragley Ti- identical geo, different material and construction, identical build- and the difference was pretty big. Not comfort but handling- the bop amplified every bump and the rear end kicked around constantly at speed, the Ti was constantly more controlled and composed, had more grip too.

Not sure why tbh. It’s like there’s 2 different types of stiff/soft.

Stop being so aggressive Tom_1293489348573434!

Sorry but thats BS, Stoner loved the carbon frame and rated it over the steel bike – Rossi came along and wrecked it.

The reason the Ducati is fickle isnt because of the frame material, its the large 90 degree v4 that places the weight too far back. They wont scrap the
design because it gives the bike a similar sound to their ubiqitous v2s. Hence they were the first to introduce the big canards in an effort to redress the issues with weight distribution.

Not entirely true. This article here by the very knowledgeable Motomatters goes into detail as to what caused the issue between Rossi and the Ducati. In short, the riders (especially the older hands such as Rossi brought up on ali and steel framed bikes) were struggling to interpret the feedback given by the carbon chassis hence the large number of lowside crashes where they couldn’t identify what was going on with the front. It also stresses that carbon can be made as stiff or flexible as necessary and that the tyres in MotoGP are much less flexible compared to the tyres used at the time in WSB that were much less stiff.

Further on, the article does go into detail about the L-twin being a bugger to ‘fit’ into a bike and the compromises that have to be made around position of the fuel tank and size of airbox. Lets not forget though that Ducati dominated WSB for quite a while so the L-twin isn’t entirely rubbish (though in part this could be to do with their enormous budget!).

I do wonder if carbon push bikes are in the very early stages (compared to other sports/industries) and the notion of a ‘dull’ carbon frame may well disappear over the next few years.

I do think they’ll struggle to ever look as pretty as a steel frame though.

On the subject of motorbike frames and KTM

http://motocrossactionmag.com/news/ask-the-mxperts-16

http://www.ktm.com/gb/enduro/125-exc/
The modern frame design of the 125 EXC, comprising lightweight, high strength, chrome-molybdenum steel section tubes, combines maximum longitudinal stiffness with optimum torsional stiffness. It guarantees easy handling and precise steering behavior, as well as excellent ride stability. So the new frame not only shines with the new color, it also clearly represents the benchmark in terms of weight and stability. The frame color shines in the same orange as the KTM factory racing team, making the styling even more attractive. Thanks to the frame design and in conjunction with the rear PDS damping system, impacts at the rear wheel are absorbed and dissipated optimally. For MY 2016 the frame is protected by a robust frame guard.

And thinking about it, I went from an Mmmbop to a Ragley Ti- identical geo, different material and construction, identical build- and the difference was pretty big. Not comfort but handling- the bop amplified every bump and the rear end kicked around constantly at speed, the Ti was constantly more controlled and composed, had more grip too.

This. Mate of mine and I had a Ti and Carbon 456. Both had Revs at the same length, both had reverbs, the same nukeproof handlebars, same rims and hubs. Tyre were different but both high volume, tubeless and low pressure.

The difference in the ride feel the first time I had a go on the Ti was astounding- I’d been a sceptic until that point. It there’s nice little trail int eh woods nearby that rewards being able to hold a line across roots on an off camber section- at the time I couldn’t keep up with him down there, swapped bikes and suddenly it reversed. The bike somehow hugged the trail and hovered over it- I actually checked he wasn’t running the tyres insanely soft but they were a good 5psi harder than mine.

Anyway- frame stiffness, in my experience, can make a difference. Not sure if you can say for better or worse without a specific case in mind.

You might as well just give up now – your real-life experience will be no match for aracer’s physics!

Northwind – Member
…when I went from a rigid XC bike to a rigid fatbike. Same controls, same bars, 2.3 to 4.0 tyre which you’d think would obliterate any other difference, but suddenly I had terrible wrist fatigue…

I had that too. I put it down to the greater steering inputs from the tyre. It’s twice the width, so it’s reasonable to expect that any impact on it will require twice the force to negate it, ie your wrists are working much harder.

Using bars that were more swept back hasn’t reduced that, but it does mean my wrists are at a more natural angle, and pain is no longer a problem.

epicyclo – Member

I had that too. I put it down to the greater steering inputs from the tyre. It’s twice the width, so it’s reasonable to expect that any impact on it will require twice the force to negate it, ie your wrists are working much harder.

Not sure how changing the bar would change that though?

Northwind – Member
Not sure how changing the bar would change that though?

I don’t know why, but my theory is that it’s at an angle where the wrist is at its strongest, so fatigues less. Pure supposition.

I think it’s the slight self-steer on a fatbike Northwind. I had it with the wrists on my Wazoo, then less so on the Dune. Did you not change tyres near the time too? Or perhaps you just get used to it eventually.

Thread is about steel so a pic of a steel fatbike.

Now steel fatbikes…. Thin tubes, fat tyres. Just looks so right 🙂

Except any vertical flex in the frame is completely overwhelmed by the flex in the tyres – and 1psi difference in tyre pressure makes far more difference to the ride comfort than the difference between the stiffest and flexiest frame. So comfort due to vertical flex in the frame is fundamentally irrelevant (as discussed, there are other things which do make a difference like seatpost flex).

Yes there is a difference in feel – that’s down to sideways flex of the frame (and not necessarily characteristic of a particular material – that’s also down to design).

Erm, Im going to ignore this unless you can prove it with published independent cleverness. That is to say anything that is not you/written by you deciding your theories are true

The difference in the ride feel the first time I had a go on the Ti was astounding- I’d been a sceptic until that point.

Yup. In the late 90s, I went to a Kona test day on the SouthDowns, I was riding a steel HT and had a go riding the Ti Kona over my then local trails, the Ti frame was as if I had found a way to cheat somehow!

If you want to Panda to frame flex surely it’s gotta be bamboo….

Feel free. You can also ignore gravity if you like. It doesn’t require lots of cleverness, it’s pretty much school level physics we’re talking about – feel free to go and find the research if you like, I’m sure it’s been done, but I CBA searching to prove a point in response to such a dismissive post.

Feel free. You can also ignore gravity if you like. It doesn’t require lots of cleverness, it’s pretty much school level physics we’re talking about – feel free to go and find the research if you like, I’m sure it’s been done, but I CBA searching to prove a point in response to such a dismissive post.

Lets be clear, I accept and know full well tyres impact the handling of any wheeled vehicle. What you seem to be implying is that any benefit perceived or otherwise to a steel frame is negated by the tyres