Is Steel Real?

[Grey Hubs]

Still loving my Soma B Side.image.jpeg

What size rubber you running on that???

[HeyYou]

I am a proper steelophile but you're dead wrong. Steel will always be heavier and handle worse than carbon.

 

Carbon you can wrap up in a million different ways and shapes to give portions of the bike differemt properties. Steel you're stuck with a heavy and mostly round/oval shape. Steel is great for fun and passion but it will never compete head to head with carbon.

 

Some truth, but not the whole truth!!!!

 

Rourke Cycles in Staffordshire offer 953 as an option for their custom builds. Their master framebuilder, Jason Rourke, reckons that, “In a world of marginal gains, steel can make the difference between victory and disappointment. In all honesty, 953 is technologically more advanced than most carbons out there, and is the major turning point when it comes to steel high performance cycling.”

 

http://www.ridevelo.cc/blog/2017/1/25/a-tour-de-france-winner-on-a-steel-bike

[IH8MUD]

I am taking an perfectly good  Niner RDO fork of my Salsa El Mariachi to fit  this 

Steel is Real baby. 

 

[Eldron]

Some truth, but not the whole truth!!!!

 

Rourke Cycles in Staffordshire offer 953 as an option for their custom builds. Their master framebuilder, Jason Rourke, reckons that, “In a world of marginal gains, steel can make the difference between victory and disappointment. In all honesty, 953 is technologically more advanced than most carbons out there, and is the major turning point when it comes to steel high performance cycling.”

 

http://www.ridevelo.cc/blog/2017/1/25/a-tour-de-france-winner-on-a-steel-bike

 

If you're looking for a bump absorbing bike then steel is the right one:

 

He said it came into its own riding the gravelly terrain as he grappled with muddy corners and rolled over cobbles at Dwars door het Hageland in Belgium. “I sat comfortably on my performance-steel bike while all around me they wrestled carbon.”

 

​​It still isn't light:

 

While the Volare is half a kilo or so heavier than some of the carbon models favoured by the majority of the peloton, that’s only the equivalent of a filled water bottle.

 

​​But weight isn't everything.

 

We are, of course, getting into the "what do you mean by better" territory. If you want a comfortable bike that will soak up some shock and not leave you battered after a ride then steel is a great option - if you want the fastest bike out there carbon will always be the superior metarial.

 

*in my opinion of course*

 

Edit: This sums it up for me:

 

While the Volare is ideal for criteriums and cobbles, Genesis accept that it’s not quite up to the mark when it comes to riding one for a grand tour just yet. But as the development of steel tubing technology continues apace, it could only be within five to ten years that we see a Tour de France winner on a steel bike. That really would be a great comeback story!

 

​​The problem is that carbon technology is also advancing - carbon has come on leaps and bounds in the last 5 years and will continue to do so I reckon. It wasn't along ago that you couldn't get a sub 1kg carbon frame - now we're on 700g (500g for some exotics). In steel's 5 to 10 years carbon will be even lighter, stronger and more durable.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Eldron

[eddy]

I am a proper steelophile but you're dead wrong. Steel will always be heavier and handle worse than carbon.

 

Carbon you can wrap up in a million different ways and shapes to give portions of the bike differemt properties. Steel you're stuck with a heavy and mostly round/oval shape. Steel is great for fun and passion but it will never compete head to head with carbon.

 

 

As a rule, yes. But not at the margins although it may be unfair to compare custom steel with a mass produced carbon frame, even at roughly the same price.

 

Tom Boonen won a couple of TdeF stages and the green jersey in 2007 riding a Pegoretti Marcello (could have been a MxxxxxxO) painted to look like a Spez,  on the sprinter stages.

 

He wanted something that could take his explosive power yet not be to harsh in the miles to the finish and could get someone to build something that met his criteria.

 

They can probably get these characteristics out of carbon now but it would be pretty expensive to build a one-off for a rider. 

 

I think Dan Craven also rode a steel Condor for a while.

 

ps. I am not saying steel is a better material to build a race bike out of but only that under specific conditions you could build a race winning bike out of steel.

[Eldron]

As a rule, yes. But not at the margins although it may be unfair to compare custom steel with a mass produced carbon frame, even at roughly the same price.

 

Tom Boonen won a couple of TdeF stages and the green jersey in 2007 riding a Pegoretti Marcello (could have been a MxxxxxxO) painted to look like a Spez,  on the sprinter stages.

 

He wanted something that could take his explosive power yet not be to harsh in the miles to the finish and could get someone to build something that met his criteria.

 

They can probably get these characteristics out of carbon now but it would be pretty expensive to build a one-off for a rider. 

 

I think Dan Craven also rode a steel Condor for a while.

 

ps. I am not saying steel is a better material to build a race bike out of but only that under specific conditions you could build a race winning bike out of steel.

 

And for the last decade Boonen has been sprinting, riding ParisRoubaix, the TdF, track and cyclocross on a carbon rig.

 

Steel is lovely but you won't see it under the arses of 99.99% of the pros any time soon (or ever again in my opinion).

 

Steel for fun - carbon for racing.

 

That said - I actually think 90% of riders would be better off on steel. The vast majority of weekend riders have bikes way too stiff for them - they're so pro/carbon/must have "the best" obsessed that they don't even consider steel. I reckon the back 85% of the field should be on carbon - it'll make their lives way more comfy and their overall cycling experience better.

 

The 15% front end should be happy to sacrifice some comfort the the extra efficiency and lighter weight that carbon offers.

[Ispeed_V]

Started out on an Alpina in the early 80's, then onto a Vaccari (which I am led to believe is now Bottecchia) and then a ZINI

 

Think they were all steel.

[Eldron]

 

Tom Boonen won a couple of TdeF stages and the green jersey in 2007 riding a Pegoretti Marcello (could have been a MxxxxxxO) painted to look like a Spez,  on the sprinter stages.

 

 

In other news - Boonen also used to roll on custom carbons that Spesh made for him.

 

I can't find the actual article but this one alludes to it: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-tom-boonens-omega-pharma-quickstep-specialized-s-works-tarmac-sl4/

[eddy]

 

 

Steel for fun - carbon for racing.

 

That said - I actually think 90% of riders would be better off on steel. The vast majority of weekend riders have bikes way too stiff for them - they're so pro/carbon/must have "the best" obsessed that they don't even consider steel. I reckon the back 85% of the field should be on carbon steel - it'll make their lives way more comfy and their overall cycling experience better.

 

The 15% front end should be happy to sacrifice some comfort the the extra efficiency and lighter weight that carbon offers.

 

 

I made a small edit that I think fixes what you were trying to say.

 

I agree with you. I have Steel, Ti, and Carbon bikes and somehow have ended up the last year riding an Eddy Merckx Team SC scandium framed bike almost exclusively.

 

Lighter than steel at a 7.1 kg build and a better ride than Carbon.

[Eldron]

I made a small edit that I think fixes what you were trying to say.

 

I agree with you. I have Steel, Ti, and Carbon bikes and somehow have ended up the last year riding an Eddy Merckx Team SC scandium framed bike almost exclusively.

 

Lighter than steel at a 7.1 kg build and a better ride than Carbon.

 

Thanks! Quite right.

 

Good call - I had a Niner AIR9 in scandium. Scandium is one of the few aluminiums that doesn't have that super harsh ride (if the tube diameter is small enough).

 

I do pretty much all my training on a Niner MCR 853 steel bike. Nice and comfy (as hardtails go). All my racing gets done on the carbon uberbike.

[greatwhite]

I made a small edit that I think fixes what you were trying to say.

 

I agree with you. I have Steel, Ti, and Carbon bikes and somehow have ended up the last year riding an Eddy Merckx Team SC scandium framed bike almost exclusively.

 

Lighter than steel at a 7.1 kg build and a better ride than Carbon.

Problem with scandium frame is the bad rep for fatigue failures

[Jewbacca]

This is all very Roadie based..

 

I think the characteristics of steel on a hard tail 140-160mm MTB with big volume tires is perfect for our trails in SA.

 

Even the Plumber line in Jonkers (widely regarded as 'n meneer') is comfortably rideable on my steel hardtail.

 

I have also ridden down there on a 160mm trail bike and the speed I could carry through the trail was exhilarating.

 

There is no definitive answer I suppose.... Steel is not better than anything. It is just the taste of some.

 

I personally don't like carbon bikes. I find them twitchy and skittish on both the road and Mountain.

 

My Alu Epic is a hugely fun, capable bike and I enjoyed thrashing it about on trails it probably wasn't made for.

 

Everyone is so obsessed with their opinion being right and not just an opinion these days. Steel is RAD... custom steel bikes are super rad. But I secretly lust after a pink Nomad as well.........

 

As for steel being used in the Peloton again? Maybe for the cobbles and for Adam Hansen while he struggles to get to 20 grand tours on the trot!

[greatwhite]

Good call - I had a Niner AIR9 in scandium. Scandium is one of the few aluminiums that doesn't have that super harsh ride (if the tube diameter is small enough).

 

Ironic - I new you had had a few Niners (especially Kermit), but wasn't aware you had a scandium one - probably a good call to get rid of is - it was especially the air9 that I have seen so many posts about failures

[Ispeed_V]

To add some porn to the post.

 

Only costs a cool 3200 pounds

 

 

[henningvr]

Never having ridden a carbon bike, I obviously cannot compare steel vs. carbon. There is no comparison though between my steel rigid vs. an aluminium rigid - I used to get home completely shot on the aluminium bike. Sore wrists, elbows, back etc. Not so on the steel rigid. Steel is a lot more forgiving.

 

In the end, ride whatever you like, as long as you ride. Different strokes for different folks. Like Eldron said: Steel for fun - carbon for racing.

[Eldron]

Ironic - I new you had had a few Niners (especially Kermit), but wasn't aware you had a scandium one - probably a good call to get rid of is - it was especially the air9 that I have seen so many posts about failures

 

Kermit was the scandium! Niner's first AIR9s were all scandium.

 

As far as I know Kermit is still alive and well and serving his new master well :-)