[Closed] Modern steel XC bikes are a bit rubbish?

Meh.

25 years MTBing here. I recently did a ride with a college friend that we'd first done probably around that time on early 90s bikes. And we remarked upon how much better modern bikes are.

Seriously - those old bikes, they flexed. Ok, big deal. I don't particulary like flex. I like my Salsa because it's stiff when I smash the pedals and is still comfortable because it has 2.4" tubless tyres at 20psi on 30mm rims.

Bike rides maybe were better back then, because I was 18, the sun was shining and I had nothing else that needed doing. But the bikes were worse 🙂

To be fair to Kona, the new Explosive isn't a million miles away from that.

And we remarked upon how much better modern bikes are.

How much of this is through bigger axles/steerers and things though?

Building steel bikes to be completely rock solid rigid seems to kill the point of it doesn't it? Beyond that I don't really see why you'd want a frame that was 50% heavier than aluminium, or double the weight of carbon, for carbon money.

They flexed up until they broke. I'll take today's bikes please

To be fair to Kona, the new Explosive isn't a million miles away from that.

The new one is Reynolds 520, which is just bottom end cro-mo. With a big brace on the seatpost, big Minion tyres, Revelations. The old one was a 24lb XC bike.

Get something made in tubes that suit your weight and fork length etc. Modern steel is heavy (ish) because it typically has to pass fatigue tests for a big heavy rider running long forks.

Or buy some tubes from Ceeway and crack on making your own. Having personally taken this option, I can assure you ready made for £1200 is the cheaper alternative if you only want one bike...... 🙂

Yeah, always an option. A chap I ride with locally works at Reynolds, so has lots of thoughts on the issue 🙂

I just find it frustrating, the new Explosif is an ideal example. There used to be competitive XC hardtails made of steel, new regulations mean it's not even an option. Companies very rarely bother with expensive Reynolds 753 type stuff any more.

I'm not specifically saying everything needs to be that ancient Explosif, everything got heavier, even things like Inbred's which were hardly known for snapping. I just miss light compliant/flexy steel frames and don't really understand why anyone would want one of the new style overweight/stiff ones.

I guess there's always titanium, tragically it's almost competitive price wise with a lot of the boutique steel now.

**** me OP, your rose tinted glasses are massive.

This it true, I should probably just buy an old retro bike and get it out of my system 😀 The Exposif was a crap example, if I'd been arsed I'd have found a nice frame from 10 years ago, going back a bit too much there.

The bike I ride most is a 1998 Kona Lavadome.
£99 with a few new bits added. Weighs about 23lbs.

I used to ride a 21lb Kilauea. My 26lb inbred (rebas, 1x10) is much faster everywhere except road climbs....

I love my big heavy steel Kona Honzo, love it more than my lighter Kona full suspension.

Building steel bikes to be completely rock solid rigid seems to kill the point of it doesn't it? Beyond that I don't really see why you'd want a frame that was 50% heavier than aluminium, or double the weight of carbon, for carbon money.

No? What is the point of steel? I don't buy into this 'lively, springy' waffle. Flexy wastes power. I had a flexible bike, so flexible it would change out of the big ring if I hammered on the pedals. A bike should be stiff as comfort allows. And with modern tyres, this is pretty stiff. Which is a win/win imo.

Those boutique £1200 frames aren't that price because of any inherent characteristic, they are that price because they need to be because they are small outfits and cannot benefit from economies of scale.

My steel frame was £450. Dunno what it weighs tbh, 5.5 lbs probably. However, when I throw it into a loose corner it drifts beautifullly, perfectly balanced. On my Fire Mountain, front wheel washout was always the risk and you were just waiting for it to happen in any corner. So you'd move your weight forward which made it damn hard to do twisty windy stuff.

If you want light, strong and compliant, we now have carbon. Why would you want steel when we have carbon? Nostalgia, probably.

If you're riding the same type of trails we were riding twenty years ago i'm sure a twenty year old design would be great but things have moved on for most of us...

I used to ride a 21lb Kilauea. My 26lb inbred (rebas, 1x10) is much faster everywhere except road climbs....

My other bike is a Scandal, weighs about 24lb, and the Kona is much faster for me on pretty much everything apart from rocky downhill.

If you want a light steel frame then i'll sell you my 15.5" Soulcraft Option 3 frame for £250?, no use to you if you are much over 5ft 7" though.

If you're riding the same type of trails we were riding twenty years ago i'm sure a twenty year old design would be great

I am riding the same trails, and the modern bikes are still better.

My other bike is a Scandal, weighs about 24lb, and the Kona is much faster for me on pretty much everything apart from rocky downhill.

I've had retros faster than the Kilauea, A Merlin XLM most notably. When I was absolutely on my game it was incredibly quick, but as soon as I stopped riding offroad every week it became a tricky sod. The Inbred is pick-up-and-go accessible for the every now and then that I ride offroad these days

I am riding the same trails, and the modern bikes are still better.

Well indeed, which is why I said I'd like a modern geometry/componentry fitted xc steel bike that doesn't weight or cost the earth.

Aluminium frames haven't suddenly got a pound heavier in the last 10 years.

Isn't the answer to that a Cotic Soul then?

Why would you want steel when we have carbon? Nostalgia, probably.

longevity - a steel bike really does feel like it could be a bike for life, whereas I doubt you are going to see many old carbon frames around.

Just built up a 26 cove handjob for my nephew and it was really nice on the test ride - wider bars, shortish stem, high volume tyres, 100mm Sids, 1x11 SLX.

His mum has my old steel Voodoo Wanga.

Toasty, I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head there. True xc bikes now tend to be aluminium these days unless you want to spend big money.

Not all modern steel frames are dead harsh. I borrowed the new Slackline from the Stanton boys last year for a few weeks and was surprised at how comfy the 853 tubeset was given the big head tube, dropper compatible seat tube and bolt through rear end. It felt a lot like the original Slackline which blew my BFe out of the water. I was a bit meh about steel frames until I had an original Slackline.

If I'm honest, that new Slackline was probably a bit comfier than my Ti Switchback (second generation).

Steel isn't dead light and loses out compared to modern ali and carbon frames.

So, it's not that modern bikes are rubbish - it's that they are 1lb heavier than they used to be. That about right?

I doubt you are going to see many old carbon frames around.

I bet you are. It doesn't fatigue or corrode. Why wouldn't it last forever?

My road bike has had a hard life and is still going at ten years. Does that count as old?

Yeah, the Soul was the only example I could think of that wasn't built like a tank and used decent metal. It's obviously possible and people seemed to love them.

I just wonder if most steel frames sell on niche/retro value alone and the cost of expensive tubing usually doesn't pay for itself.

I'm with the OP here, slightly trailsy xc hardtail with a bit of zing would be lovely. Got a modern steel hardtail and it's pretty dead in reality. Cracking bike but just lacks that tiny bit of spring which I've felt on 90s steel and even alu, on my nunu

So, it's not that modern bikes are rubbish - it's that they are 1lb heavier than they used to be. That about right?

Im just saying I don't see the point in the ones that are super stiff, super heavy and super expensive. Which seems to be the majority. People used to buy steel for the way it rode.

I know it's a half marketing rubbish and there's loads of compliant aluminium frames about. My Scandal was more comfy than my Swift to be honest.

The new one is Reynolds 520, which is just bottom end cro-mo

.... Yea it is, so they also made a Ti one 😈

For the curious: https://www.wideopenmountainbike.com/2017/09/steel-real-demo-day-heads-forest-dean-october-29th

Building steel bikes to be completely rock solid rigid seems to kill the point of it doesn't it? Beyond that I don't really see why you'd want a frame that was 50% heavier than aluminium, or double the weight of carbon, for carbon money.

I think that misses a lot of the benefits of steel.

I regularly treat my bikes like crap (I shouldn't say that, I'm in the process of selling one!), steel bikes really do tolerate being crashed, ridden hard, crashed, crashed, thrown over walls, dragged over trees, crashed, etc etc and just shrug it off.

I've an El-Mariachi (like Molgrips) and it's definitely at the stiff end of the steel spectrum, but it still rides in a different way to an aluminum frame.

If you want something that rides like a mid-90's bike (in a good way, not the 'won't go where you point it because it's so flexy') then you have to accept that a 29er will weigh more than a <4lb explosif. The Swift fit's that description perfectly though, it rides like you think a steel bike should, but with enough confidence to pin it on singletrack.

I have a few year old Kona Smoke - it's a 29er v-braked steel commuter frame that im in the process of shaving the brake mounts off and TIGing a disc mount on to make it more useable.
It's a great frame in that old school steel XC style.
[url= https://s1.postimg.org/86jupwrthr/IMG_1415.jp g" target="_blank">https://s1.postimg.org/86jupwrthr/IMG_1415.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Im just saying I don't see the point in the ones that are super stiff, super heavy and super expensive. Which seems to be the majority.

The majority aren't expensive.

I bought steel because it was more durable than alu and cheaper than carbon.

https://www.wideopenmountainbike.com/2017/09/steel-real-demo-day-heads-forest-dean-october-29th

Cheers for the link! I genuinely might pop along to this to have a look. Just having a moan really, I ride a Swift so I'm not totally against the idea. My old mk1 Scandal 29er was notably more comfy, a pound lighter and cheaper though if I'm honest.

On an old note:

I bet you are. It doesn't fatigue or corrode. Why wouldn't it last forever?

I've had 2 carbon mountain bikes, both broke from having a huge long seatpost with 200 pounds bouncing on the end (Ibis Mojo and Zaskar). I've had a couple of steel bikes and a good 20 or something aluminium frames, I've never broken one.

They flexed up until they broke. I'll take today's bikes please

I bought this new in 1994. Has been ridden for 23 years and still as good as new. This is a recent pic after I had it repainted and restored.

[URL= http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp187/rcatkin/Retrobikes/1994%20Kona%20Kilauea/DSC03571_zps57e8a28a.jp g" target="_blank">http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp187/rcatkin/Retrobikes/1994%20Kona%20Kilauea/DSC03571_zps57e8a28a.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

A good friend of mine has had 2 carbon frames fail when he dropped them on their sides onto the floor and they hit a piece of wood. 😯

I’ll stick with my Kilauea thanks. 😀

I don’t think anyone takes pride in the tubing sticker on their frames so much nowadays.

[URL= http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp187/rcatkin/Retrobikes/1994%20Kona%20Kilauea/DSC03582_zpsba703b0f.jp g" target="_blank">http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp187/rcatkin/Retrobikes/1994%20Kona%20Kilauea/DSC03582_zpsba703b0f.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

I've had 2 carbon mountain bikes, both broke from having a huge long seatpost with 200 pounds bouncing on the end

Are you saying all carbon frames are weak? That's simply not true. You may have bought badly designed or weak carbon frames, but there are also badly designed and weak steel and alu frames, that has nothing to do with the material. Ask on here who's broken or cracked alu frames.

Carbon frames need not be weak. And the fact remains they don't corrode or fatigue.

EDIT in fact wasn't there a thread just the other day about corrosion protecting steel frames, and loads of people popped up saying they'd rusted their steel frames though?

And when it's time to move on you know that a steel or alu frame can be recycled, whereas carbon...

Disc brakes, dropper post, proper forks… I'm in no rush to lose them.

Steel bends. Carbon fails. End of.

However, I choose to ride a custom steel road bike, and an old(ish) carbon MTB. Why?

Because I like riding them. In fact, I look forward to riding them. Which is the only thing that matters, is it not?

And when it's time to move on you know that a steel or alu frame can be recycled, whereas carbon...

That's of so little consequence in the grand total of cyclingd carbon footprint its not worth considering.

Throw it in an incinerator and it'll power STW for a few minutes.

[quote=TurnerGuy ]And when it's time to move on you know that a steel or alu frame can be recycled, whereas carbon...

http://www.elgcf.com/

Carbon fails. End of.

Sorry, what? Carbon is definitely going to fail?

Sorry, what? Carbon is definitely going to fail?

If you crash hard, you ride at your own peril next time…….not so with steel

(I'm a Materials Scientist by the way - so I do realise I'm making sweeping statements here - but in a generally speaking kind of way, if you hit your lovely carbon beauty hard, it definitely won't react as well as steel!)

Ok. But I can be pretty confident that certain of my bikes will never be crashed hard.

Meanwhile, check your steel frame for rust and cracks...

it definitely won't react as well as steel

You can break steel frames in crashes too. I've seen it done. I've also bent one by shifting into the wrong gear...

Meanwhile, check your steel frame for rust and cracks...

No rust on mine….it's stainless!

It is a bit more susceptible to impacts than say an 853 frame though because it's a slightly less forgiving material…..

I've broken plenty of steel road frames (in a past, younger life when I used to win road races with a killer sprint - those days are long gone :D)….I've snapped a couple of downtubes in bunch sprints many, many years ago (753 and 531sl) as well as dropouts but what was really key (with the downtubes especially) is that the rest of the frame didn't instantly fail…..in both cases, there was a complete break in the downtube near the lever bosses, and in both cases the top tube held and just acted like a spring and I stayed on and stopped perfectly safely….if that had been a carbon frame, I doubt I'd be writing this!!!!!!

Oh yes, and all the steel frames I broke were subsequently repaired!

Just sayin'

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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!