[Closed] Steel bikes going against the curve

its all marketing.

Not at all marketing.

I like steel, Ive had Carbon, Steel, various alu frames, always come back to steel. Steel is nice. On road, geometry plays a far bigger role than frame material/weight (though nobody will accept that, that bit is all marketing), off road I think steel is fun on single track blasts as is carbon, alu is to me too crunchy.

They're getting amazing reviews and believe that some flex in a frame is a good thing

Been saying this for years, they tried maximum stiffness in motorbikes a few years ago and they turned out to be chattery unridable pieces of crap, they eventually realised some flex is good for rider feel and feedback....finally MTBs seem to be going that way too now.

I love how quiet they seem but a lot of 1x bikes are now anyway. I also like how they seem pretty rugged and how some companies allow custom geometry etc due to their production output. The thin tubes seem pretty love/hate to people I've spoken to but I like them and they'd grow on me. Had my eyes on a commencal meta or norco range as a future bike but now I'm starting to be drawn more towards something like a cotic rocket.

Been saying this for years, they tried maximum stiffness in motorbikes a few years ago and they turned out to be chattery unridable pieces of crap,

kraken, which direction do you think this curve was turning in? I got the impression that interest in steel levelled off a while ago, brands came and went but the interest has always been there.

Some brands have been plowing this furrow for quite a while - DMR (I've got a Bolt, and love it!), Cotic, Surly, Dialled, and plenty of others.

Steel makes sense for smaller brands, and those who like to make bikes that will last, but aren't necessarily too bothered about making featherweights.

All of my Mountain Bikes are steel. I Like the ride 🙂

Surly Krampus, Surly Instigator, DMR Bolt, Dialled Love-Hate, Genesis Vagabond, and Indy Fab Deluxe SS. Go Me 😉

Max Commencal used steel in the old Sunn bikes and purposely designed flex into the frames.
But the marketing people need to sell bikes and they can quantify stiffness. You can't imperially measure fun.

Personally I'm leaning towards the Starling bike

Tom kp

It's marketing. It's not going to be as light as aluminium or carbon, and if you can really tell the difference between steel and aluminium you're probably very sensitive. But it looks nice, and if you can convince yourself it rides better for whatever reason then go for it. I have a Transition Trans Am, it's steel, but the main reason I got it is because I like it.

SeeTom Ritchey who, misquoted here but, if chromoly was created today it would be the wonder material..... highly robust, ' tunable ', repairable and light ish.....not all steel bikes are created equal though.

I've never really minded too much about weight, I spend 5 days a week in the gym weights wise and drink a lot of beer so I'd be a little hypocritical if I was upset over a little extra bulk on a frame.

All this boost spacing etc I get with less flex in frames and wheels but I think that a bike that doesn't just have really well setup suspension but a greater ability to move and flex over undulations in the trail will result in better traction etc which is a bonus. I currently ride an alu spesh pitch and love it but steel frames are far rarer on the trails and seem a little more bespoke/special when you see them I suppose.

It took me a while to get the whole steel thing, but when I got the right frame (original Slackline 853) it clicked. I had a BFe before that it was pretty stiff and and no less harsh than things like my Chameleon.

I'm all for a bit of flex in the right place - I sacked off my SixC bars because they were too stiff and beat the hell out of my hands. Back on my preferred ali Pro Taper bars which are slender, flexy and more comfy.

mikewsmith - Member

beauty of carbon is that you can build in flex and stiffness where you need it.

yes you can, if you've got a massive research budget to run the development tests...

I think my main concern when I see single pivot frame designs is that I've heard a lot about pedal bob etc and I do stamp on the pedals. I haven't looked into suspension designs as much as I usually would but I imagine a more methodical pedaling pattern or something similar helps this issue? I hear the odd bad thing about all suspension platfroms tbh, I haven't ridden more than a few but I imagine they all have their pros/cons

Rubbish the CEN tests have resulted in stiffer steel frames than the past, so you can't be telling me they are all flexy. I don't get the steel love thing, and that's from someone who rode steel frames for years. Quite frankly CF is the best material for bikes and aluminium is a brilliant cost effective solution. Steel well that is 1900's tech and only really useful for custom builders.

I can get the stiffness thing if your looking at a multi pivot full suspension, where you might want to direct any movement into damped suspension action/reaction. Likewise a race BMX or track bike etc, where you want as much power transfer as possible, but even then stiffness could kill the thing prematurely. Spec & buy nice steel tubes, get the angles right & your half way there with steel frames, a lot more difficult (& expensive) with carbon & hydro-formed alloy.

My ht is steel & was pretty expensive when new. The mfr claimed each tube & its degree of butting was specified specifically etc. Might just be bumpf but it's light, responsive & has a supple ride that's bloody lovely. Nothing I've ridden in alloy even comes close. But look down as your mashing on & you can see it flexing all over.

yes you can, if you've got a massive research budget to run the development tests...

Or a decent FE solver and don't sail quite so close to the wind with the strength, which harder to predict in composites (you're only ever going to know the strength of any frame by chucking it through the tests though, to be honest).

Steel is fine, I'd agree that geometry makes more difference than weight, but whilst I can feel the flex in steel, I can't feel an increase in comfort, and I can feel an increase in weight (although it's quite a modest increase in weight in the context of a full bike). And these days there's no difference in the price of a steel frame against that of an aluminium one, but the aluminium will be 1-2lb lighter. I'm yet to ride a bike that's too stiff to give feedback (though I've not ridden any high end modern carbon).

Some steel does look very nice though, and I wouldn't rule out steel, just don't lust after high end steel at the moment.

dragon - Member
Steel well that is 1900's tech

Jeremy Clarkson is not a reliable source for accurate materials science factoids...

Well the stock 4130 grade was apparently established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the 1930s and Reynolds 531 goes back to a similar time. So I'm afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn't moved on a lot since the 1930's.

A well designed bike will be a good bike (geometry, shock curve, etc) no matter what material it is made of. One man band designing/making bikes is going to make a good job of it, the big manufacturers can afford to make some howlers (xl stumpjumper has a 145mm tall headtube???_ as people will buy them on the brand alone

In the case of Cotic, Starling, Shand, Stanton, etc, these are expensive frames and so will tend to have nice parts hung off them, which will make the bike feel a bit more special.

Steel is nice to work with, the FEA is more straightforward and correlation to the real world is cheaper. Final year project at uni was to build a single seat race car and it was quite surprising how close the FEA was to the real world tests! Did mean the safety margins could be a lot smaller!

I'm guessing this was behind this thread (if not it should have been!)

https://dirtmountainbike.com/bike-reviews/trail-enduro-bikes/starling-murmur-steel-bike-thats-blown-us-away.html

https://dirtmountainbike.com/features/interviews/steel-new-blueprint.html

I can get the stiffness thing if your looking at a multi pivot full suspension, where you might want to direct any movement into damped suspension action/reaction.

The problem is that we lean our bikes over around corners, so the suspension goes sideways as much as upwards, which isn't ideal for handling bumps.

I definitely think for a hardtail, steel is king. I wouldn't have any other material now but obviously frame design plays a big part.

I've currently got a Production Privee Oka that rides just beautifully. They have horizontally ovalised chain stays to build in a little compliance.
It's easily the most comfortable hardtail I've ever had and I've had my share.

Also have a Cotic Rocket 275. You could argue that steel isn't structurally important in a full suss, and maybe not. Aesthetically though, the small diameter tubes look lush.

dragon - Member

Well the stock 4130 grade was apparently established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in the 1930s and Reynolds 531 goes back to a similar time. So I'm afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn't moved on a lot since the 1930's.

6061 aluminium alloy was developed in the 1930s. Carbon fibre was first commercialised in the 1800s. What changes is how you use and shape the material.

zero cool - Member

Max Commencal used steel in the old Sunn bikes and purposely designed flex into the frames.
But the marketing people need to sell bikes and they can quantify stiffness. You can't imperially measure fun.

Nico Vooleywoo is the same- Lapierre sent him their latest greatest bikes, and he set about them with a lathe and mill to add flex where he wants it. But it's not quite as simple as you say- some people do prefer stiffer.

You don't see many steel rims any more lol

Love steel on a road bike.
Just feels right.

Not as fussed on a hard tail.
I think design, construction, tyres, correct fork set up and seatpost make more difference that frame material.

I'm starting to be drawn more towards something like a cotic rocket.

I tested the original Rocket because I loved the way it looked, bought it because I loved the way it rode. Haven't regretted it once and 4 years later I'm looking at the 275 version with lust.

I don't think a full sussers material is as influential in the ride as it is on a hardtail, it's a lot more about the suspension design.

@kraken there is a little pedal bob, but not enough to bother me certainly. Try one you'll love it.

So I'm afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn't moved on a lot since the 1930's.

But the wheel has been around (arf!) for aaaaages and that's still relevant technology...

Steel's just [i]nice[/i] though, isn't it? Bit more recyclable than CF as well.

Stiffness is not a function of the material. I like my steel SS HT, but it is tube diameter that determines stiffness.

So I'm afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn't moved on a lot since the 1930's.

And the bicycle is even earlier 19th century...

and you want to talk about [i]old[/i] tech?

The Dirt piece on the new Starling was very interesting, but Jones definitely wasn't saying "steel is best" - just that it can make a really good FS bike. We all know it's great for hardtails anyway.

I've had a few bikes in recent years (slight understatement) and some have definitely been too stiff - to the point where there's too much feedback when trying to ride at speed or the bike starts getting out of shape.

Sometimes a stiff bike feels better for hitting turns or drops, but turns out to be slower down a rocky hillside. While a flexy bike can be fast but a bit unnerving as I feel my feet moving sideways in the corners (Orange Patriot).

But I've also had carbon and alu FS bikes that were "just right" in terms of chassis stiffness. I'd love to try a decent steel one.

My steel FS (Rocket) is exactly the same weight as my old alu FS (Alpine) with the same kit hanging off it - there may well be an argument that the Alpine was overbuilt but the Rocket is in no way a delicate little flower... So the weight argument holds little water for me and my riding. Back end of the Alpine was WAY flexier than the Rocket's, but that's more to do with suspension design than materials.

Anyway - http://www.cotic.co.uk/geek/page/SteelFullSuspension

And IIRC some more in the series of lecture videos here -

Possibly some marketing in there, but Cy is a proper engineer and I tend to trust his analysis.

@Kayak23

I definitely think for a hardtail, steel is king. I wouldn't have any other material now but obviously frame design plays a big part.

This I agree with too however, I rode a Scott Endorphin for a really long time, about 15 years, it was truly hard to fault for me and my riding.

I do recall riding a mates Cannondale (higher spec more expensive) bike alongside my steel Kona and the Kona felt far more 'alive', the aluminium Cannondale was lighter stiffer but not so nice to ride.

Id love to ride an 'old' steel frame and one of the new CEN tested frame.

Loads of words in here.

All I know is I saw one of these in the flesh yesterday and it looked reet lush.
[img] [/img]

Very slender looking, felt light enough in the hand, nice pastel colours, good sizing. It was sitting next to some very expensive carbon bikes from the usual suspects and it definitely stood out.

I can't wait to test ride a Rocket.

The problem is that we lean our bikes over around corners, so the suspension goes sideways as much as upwards, which isn't ideal for handling bumps.

I've got a quite flexy steel FS (BTR Fabrications), and one of the surprising things about it is the way it 'wriggles' through rocks and roots when you're really pushing it, it feels a bit odd if you're not expecting it, and will definitely feel odd if you're used to very stiff frames, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is beneficial, some of it comes form the back end on mine but the front triangle definitely has some influence on it as well.

Mated to a fairly burly front fork it works very well, you get decent accuracy from the front end, and the back end will just make its way through on a mix of the suspension and flex, it feels smoother in most circumstances and there is less bucking from the back end and it seems to have more traction too, in that it doesn't break loose in a snappy way like some very stiff bikes can when they get punted laterally mid corner or heading through rock gardens, if I were forced to describe it in one word it would be 'fluid' and it's not all down to the suss as it has quite basic shock on it by modern standards.

I've got a Cotic Flare frame sitting in a box here to build up too which I bought of the back of a couple of decent demos (1st with a Rocket, 2nd with Flare) and it has echos of the same feel but different, certainly stiffer than the BTR, but it's a different bike with different geo and intent and I'm going to enjoy back-to-backing it with my BTR on some favourite trails.

I've also got a few steel hardtails, my wife stole my Charge Duster Skinny off me last year but that was a sublimely flexy little thing for XC, very comfy and quicker than it should have been. I've also got a Simple which is nice and seems to strike a decent balance. I've also got an older prototype Soul, with a lighter weight tubeset on the front triangle and that thing is noticeably bendy, I like it for general XC and trail stuff, but it gets out of it's depth in big rocky stuff at speed, I've had a few moments where I've felt like I've been fighting to keep the front end under control and had some interesting 'twangs' when barrelling into and out of welsh rock gardens, it's much better behaved on swoopy woodland singletrack, despite having the exact same geo as the simple, and very similar back ends those two frames ride like completely different bikes!

Ultimately though it's all options and choices, I've got/had Alu, Ti and CF bikes as well, all good but what's best for one person and one situation isn't necessarily best for another, and 1-2lb is irrelevant unless you're at the sharp end of an XC race (and even then not *that* relevant) so go with what you like 😉

Road biking: I was doing some very long distance stuff a couple of years back. My carbon bike was U/S, so I rode my steel 631/ carbon forks winter bike instead. At the end of 140 miles I was astonished how less knackered I felt after riding the steel bike

MTB: I've recently got a Cotic Rocket Max (29, or 27.5 plus. Both boost). What a bike! It just puts a smile on your face & makes you want to have some fun. (I was riding a Whyte before, a hugely capable magic carpet ride. Little character, few smiles).

I've got a steel hardcore HT (chromag Rootdown) and I love it - I think for it's rigidity, alu has failings in the sense that I've cracked 2 (maybe 3?) alu frames.
I also love the skinny steel tubes.

You know what they say -"steel is real". And who would want to ride a made up bike?
Apart from Ti. I like ti. That's nice.

Though my race SS is alu. So that's also good as it's light. Though i'd like the same geo in skinny steel.

Bikes are good.

DrP

It was sitting next to some very expensive carbon bikes from the usual suspects and it definitely stood out.

see, marketing.

Well, if we're doing pictures....

My Rocket. Nom nom nom...
[img] [/img]

My Oka
[img] [/img]

Steel for life 😀

How did you get that wall on your bike?

I think for it's rigidity, alu has failings in the sense that I've cracked 2 (maybe 3?) alu frames.

If we're playing that game, I've cracked 4 steel frames (after a reasonable amount of use it should be said), 1 alu frame (after a reasonable amount of use, in a location where, apparently, all of that design used to fail), and 1 ti frame (in a very short timeframe).

I've got an aluminium frame that's had more use than 3 of the steel frames ever had (one was second hand so I don't really know how much use it had prior to me owning it) and is still going strong - like the ride, the durability of a frame comes from good design (and manufacture), I suspect that because steel has a reputation for being fatigue resistant, until the new EN tests came in many steel frames weren't designed with much thought given to it.

My carbon Grade sometimes feel like it has a sprung rear end. It's more comfortable than my steel Stoater.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Stop posting Cotics! You've pushed me over the edge. There's a Flare on its way... 😯 Holy shit that's a lot of money 😯

Bikes are good.

1880's tech though.

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! Stop posting Cotics! You've pushed me over the edge. There's a Flare on its way... Holy shit that's a lot of money

Worth it for such a beauty. Well done! 😀

Holy shit that's a lot of money

Bit cheaper than a Starling now though, so just think about what you've saved.

🙂

Stop posting Cotics! You've pushed me over the edge. There's a Flare on its way..

I'm a total steel convert. Like others, I've owned carbon and aluminum bikes aplenty but both my road bike and my mountain bike are steel because I love the way they ride.

It's incidental that they look OK too (IMO)

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Carbon fibre is still evolving

I looooooove my Reynolds 853 steel tube Stanton Slackline.
Sorted geometry means it goes round corners like nothing else, confident on everything.
Small thing like when small stones flick up on the down tube it sings with a sweet 'piiiing'.

I do love a nice steel frame. I care not how stiff/compliant/heavy/light/niche it is, it just seems to feel nice to ride. A good steel frame has a lovely zing to it, a 'live' feeling that no other material can really replicate IMO.
It's nice to see some of the big manufacturers catching on to, IMO.

Been saying this for years, they tried maximum stiffness in motorbikes a few years ago and they turned out to be chattery unridable pieces of crap,

They also gave up on steel trellis frames, in the best engineering terms - donkeys years ago and have even been slowly moving away from aluminium twinspar designs to carbon - Stoner still thinks the carbon Ducati machine was the best bike on the motogp grid in 09 until Rossi came along and ballsed up the development.

I would say I've become "Frame material agnostic" over the years, pretty much all of the choices out there have some benefits and some compromises thus was it ever...

But bicyclists seem to become oddly tribal about what is basically just an item of sporting/leisure equipment...

Do Badmintonists start reaching for armchair physics and whimsical descriptions of intangible "Qualities" when discussing Rackets?

Budget Vs Desired Functions innit, let's not kid ourselves...

Steel isn't anymore or less "[i]Real[/i]" than the rest, it's just another (well marketed and catered for) Niche in a market full of Niches....

Carbon Fibre is still evolving. So are Steel alloys. So are Aluminium alloys. There is no such thing as 'the best' or 'the ideal' material for a bike frame. Each material has various pro's and cons. You have to decide what the best blend of pro's and cons are for you.

Ultimately it's not about the material - it's about the design and the talent of the design engineer to exploit the properties of the material to their best. Same rules apply: strength, weight, price. Choose any two whether it be CF, Aluminium alloy or Steel alloy.

Cy is doing a great job I think (and i'm sure other small independent manufacturers of metal bikes), he is building bikes that are every bit as good as CF bikes at double the price - he's punching way above his weight when you consider the resources of the big bike companies building the super expensive carbon bikes. If he had more resources for R&D could take steel frames alot further if he were not limited to simply welding tubes together and had access to far more sophisticated, and expensive, manufacturing methods to create more efficient designs. But clearly there is a very limited market for that so not cost effective for him to pursue. 3D printing might just change that balance of economics in the not too distant future.

I'm glad that the people on page 2 realised the main benefit of steel, the bikes just look so damn sexy.

I have a aluminium Canyon Spectral (also sexy, in a completely different way), but if I ever replaced it I think I'd have to go for a Cotic rocket/ flare.

The nice thing about steel being all 1890s is that an 1890s bike still rides as sweetly as it did new.

They had steel bikes in the 20-25lb range back then, and if we named them after the surfaces they rode and raced them on we would call them 'gravel bikes'. 🙂

[quote=wobbliscott ]There is no such thing as 'the best' or 'the ideal' material for a bike frame. Each material has various pro's and cons. You have to decide what the best blend of pro's and cons are for you.

Fundamentally the way a bike handles is so much more about the design than the material it's made from - and the biggest pro/con of the different materials is "how it looks" - if you're not racing the real difference in performance is tiny (certainly on something with 2"+ of low pressure rubber any difference in comfort is mostly in the marketing man's mind).

You stick a dirty great 3 inch tyre with low inflation on a bike that compresses maybe an inch and then sing the praise of a couple of mm flex in a tube set 🙄

(certainly on something with 2"+ of low pressure rubber any difference in comfort is mostly in the marketing man's mind)

You stick a dirty great 3 inch tyre with low inflation on a bike that compresses maybe an inch and then sing the praise of a couple of mm flex in a tube set

jameso - Member
...The 'comfy rear end' bit is mostly imagination though as you say - seat post flex and front triangle give, probably / mainly.

I'd add saddle rails to that too. Noticeable when moving from a railed saddle to a beam one like SDG.

The 2.3" of rubber argument is almost valid. As each bike has 2.x" of rubber, then the frame material kicks in when defining the ride, has to. They do not feel the same to ride, they being carbon, steel, alu etc.

Also, being pedantic, a steel racing bike with an identical geometry to a carbon bike will be just as good, carbon racing frames and lightweight, now that is marketing.

@epicylco Yes. Ti vs steel rails is something I've noticed adding a bit of comfort on the road bike. Same OD but 1/2 as stiff.

As each bike has 2.x" of rubber, then the frame material kicks in when defining the ride, has to

Rubbish the CEN tests have resulted in stiffer steel frames than the past, so you can't be telling me they are all flexy. I don't get the steel love thing, and that's from someone who rode steel frames for years. Quite frankly CF is the best material for bikes and aluminium is a brilliant cost effective solution. Steel well that is 1900's tech and only really useful for custom builders.

I spent some time on the new Stanton Slackline and I think that 853 tubeset is bloody brilliant - it was so much more compliant than my steel Switchback and if I'm honest more compliant than my Mk II Ti frame which is pretty stiff.

I never had an issue with ali HT frames, but looking back at my Chameleons, Sub-Zero and Tazer I'm not sure I'd go back to ali for a HT (the later two both cracked).

After around 17 years of steel, (Orange Clockwork, 3 x P7, Kona Explosif, Haro Mary, Singular Swift x 2, Kaffenback) I've bought an Aluminium framed bike (Cannondale Beast of the East 1)..... I was put off for many years after having a Cannondale road bike in 2005 and shaking my teeth out on the roads of Shropshire & Wiltshire.... when I tested the bike I was pleasantly surprised by how frame design has come on but that might be down the the plus tyres.

I've still got 2 steel frame bikes as I don't think I would want to be without one as I enjoy the ride.

Cheers, Steve

epicyclo +1 to both your points.

One thing that doesn't tend to get mentioned is speed, as you get faster the bike tends to 'float' over the surface more. My CF road bike if ridden slowly is harsh, but get it up to speed and it is amazing and I could ride it all day.

Seat post flex is interesting, it does make a big difference, but IME it isn't always a positive (particualrly on road bikes). I had one of those super compact Giant OCRs and the seatpost could move big amounts, but it actually seemed to result in me getting tired earlier, because my legs and core were having to damp a large movement and couldn't just focus on pedalling.

If low weight wasn't as high up the priority list we'd see a lot more steel bikes out there.

Absolutely, there is a perception that low weight = performance/quality. The perception exists in many other things too, watches for example. There was a fascinating article in Cyclist a few years back where they worked out the maths for a (from memory) 1kg difference in frame weight, and the resulting power gains. On a climb it was about 8 watts from memory, on the flat it was negligible to zero.

When I was racing, the then material of choice was Scandium, I ordered a Scandium frame expecting life changing speed. Whilst waiting for the frame, the season started and the only bike I had was an old steel Pinarello, I raced this and my results were the same as my 'old' 7005 bike. When the Scandium frame arrived, results were identical. Its in the mind or the marketing. Ive had the same road bike since 2002 now (Spesh S-Works), nobody could convince me I would go better on a modern carbon frame.

If you are a subscriber, you can read it here: http://cyclistmag.co.uk/free-articles/2/?content=why-saving-weight-is-a-waste-of-money&channel=null

im struggling to buy into the frame flex after having a stiff (ish) bike. whats the point of having a flexy bike (although on a road bike i totally get it) on a full bouncer and then having something like carbon wheels or similar?

There was a fascinating article in Cyclist a few years back where they worked out the maths for a (from memory) 1kg difference in frame weight, and the resulting power gains. On a climb it was about 8 watts from memory, on the flat it was negligible to zero.

Personally I like steel for frames and forks because it's durable, safe and it looks nice, on top of that the ride feel can be as good as I'd ever expect. Old technology is good, it's very well understood and easily replicated. When I think of what makes a really great bike it rarely if ever includes a lot of 'F1' type technology or material needs, the best bikes imo tend to be the simpler ones with great geometry that carry on working. So back on topic, that's what I like about a bike like the Rocket or Starling, or a steel diamond frame - I'd have a belief that it could/would last me longer. If I like the ride it's seen as a keeper and that durability is a big part of what gives something quality or value, to me. If you rate 'ultimate performance' most highly and/or see things as short-term ownership along the path of keeping up with performance aspirations, newness etc you might disagree.

whats the point of having a flexy bike

It's all marketing , proper bike companies are not interested in forum warriors so this segment of opinion is moot. Little companies have a vested interest in niche Sales and keeping you happy look, at planet x there will be lots of companies happy to see them on their arse as people buy on price far more than the percentage who buy with their heart.

o I'm afraid it is correct to say steel tech in bike industry hasn't moved on a lot since the 1930's.

I think Reynolds, Columbus, Dedacciai etc. Would all like to disagree with you. Not only have we seen stainless tubesets arrive (including the very recent addition of Reynolds 921), we've seen various types of butting including most recently the DZB tubes that do away with the need for gussets, externally butted tubes, different stay shapes, and the removal from sale of older and less relevant tubesets.

im struggling to buy into the frame flex after having a stiff (ish) bike. whats the point of having a flexy bike (although on a road bike i totally get it) on a full bouncer and then having something like carbon wheels or similar?

That's the thing... You don't want flex everywhere. By the same token you don't want it nowhere. A bicycle is a selection of parts all brought together to create something that is hopefully greater than the sum of those parts. If you design an incredibly stiff frame and then hang the world's stiffest parts off it, then it's going to be a boneshaker. If you take a super flexy frame then cover it in lightweight flexy components, you'll spend most of your ride wondering just when the back wheel is going to overtake the front!

My personal preferences mean I like quite different things for different applications. A full suspension frame inherently has a lot more flex in it than a hardtail, so I like to mitigate that somewhat with stiff(er) wheels (but not too stiff, I tried ENVE's and didn't get on with them for instance) than I'd run on a HT. The same stiff wheels on a HT would provide a very jarring ride unless a particularly flexy frame was used, which may provide too many compromises elsewhere, so I prefer the slightly flexier wheels with a moderately stiff (but not too stiff) frame on a HT to give some flex/feel/compliance to the ride. I can say this with fair confidence having ridden bikes for 25 or so years off-road, that I've come to know to a certain degree how to achieve what I want. Of course it's the frame designers who understand it far better than we do who will know exactly how to get what they want from a frame, we just have to hope that some of them have goals that marry with ours when selecting one.

Carbon needn't be all that stiff either. If you know what you're doing then you can make carbon handle exactly the way you want to, but from experience riding and selling the things, I'd suggest less bicycle manufacturers know how to design well with carbon than they think they actually do. Though the same could be said for Ally, Steel and Ti too...

Oh and in terms of small volume manufacture, which lets face it, is where a lot of us are turning our attention these days, steel tubing is still peerless as a material to work with. The ability to quickly make a one off (either as prototype or for unique customer order) from a set of pre purchased tubes that you've selected and modified, in a short space of time, to provide a frame that's only real downside is a slight weight disadvantage against its peers (in most cases, like for like, we're talking 1lb here, maybe a touch more, not huge gains), is fantastic! I recently came to the conclusion that my ideal HT frame doesn't exist, so I've sat down and drawn the geometry on BikeCAD and have talked to a couple of builders about creating it for me. Within the next 6 weeks I could conceivably be riding around on something I've designed made out of finest steel! The fact that when pushed, I tend to prefer the inherent ride qualities of good quality steel tubing in a HT frame over other materials has also had something to do with my decision of course, but that's just another advert for the wonder material!

Weight is important to an extent, losing 300 to 400g in the frame allows you to add weight elsewhere without the bike hitting over 33lb. Example, larger brake calipers, a stiffer fork or coil suspension.

I'd rather have a coil suspended carbon bike than an air suspended steel bike....by far....why would you want to gain vertical compliance with undamped frame compliance instead of more sensitive or controlled suspension?

why would you want to gain vertical compliance with undamped frame compliance

I understand that you can make different materials act in different ways.

But how come an "old tech" steel frame bike with similar spec costs the same as an off the shelf carbon one. (lets compare a rocket and spectral?)

I understand that custom builders work with steel. This is because its easier to work with and they will get better results. Im sure that if they could work with alu or carbon in the same cost / ease they would do.

Im sure that if they could work with alu or carbon in the same cost / ease they would do.

To follow your logic, wouldn't all frames be built of the same material? I also genuinely believe that the frame builders are passionate about the ride steel provides, I dont believe many would drop steel if they could - or havent done so already

But how come an "old tech" steel frame bike with similar spec costs the same as an off the shelf carbon one. (lets compare a rocket and spectral?)

I understand that custom builders work with steel. This is because its easier to work with and they will get better results. Im sure that if they could work with alu or carbon in the same cost / ease they would do.

There's plenty of people with much more direct experience of this comparison than I have - Cotic, Swarf for starters, MickMcD here, but from what I do know of the production side I don't think it's fair to see steel as old thf simple tech that should be cheap and all carbon as new 'F1' thf high tech + expensive.

The lateral flex re. multi pivot linkages and steel frames like the Starling are good and mirror my own experiences. As someone else said, the rear seems to 'wriggle' and find a smoother route through harsh terrain than a stiffer made rear end, I like this effect, others may not.

What I find amusing is some posters coming out as anti steel and pro stiffness at all costs allowing the suspension to do it's thing....but then moving over to plus size tyres and silly low psi measurements which is in effect the same thing they're criticizing steel frames for....undamped flex/bounce!

None so strange as MTBers hopping on the next bandwagon.

You can get that flex by simply altering the stiffness of the linkages (of if for some reason you wanttwist in the frame - remove material frame areas of the carbon frame).

You could even do this by drilling the linkages if you've got the balls or know how.

Btw - I dont like 650b+, they're vague, roll too much and don't stand up to rock gardens in sensible weights...procore is the way foward due to the more progressive nature of the tyres equipped with it..which engages the suspension quicker offloading damping duties to the suspension whilst achieving more grip at the same time... nor do I like framea frames that are too laterally stiff.

If steel was so wonderfull, Ducati would still be using it in their Moto Gp bikes - as would everyone else - they aren't.

Ducati still use steel trellis in their road bikes, their original MotoGP frames were also steel trellis and apparently a joy to ride....Ducati entered some fallow years when they went over to carbon and couldn't get it to work in the same way....it's only in recent years they've got their head round it and built a rideable bike....but it's still a fickle machine compared to the conventional longer beam layout (steel or alu) which allows for what the riders term as feedback and allows them to manage their tyres better over race distance....the major criticism of Ducati's carbon box section frame in recent years is it's 'dead' feeling and that has come from a multitude of riders.

Re. the demise in road bikes, weight sells....if you're peddling a steel frame sports bike weighing 220kg and making 150bhp you're going to lose out to a rival marketing campaign selling a sports bike with the same power but with an alu frame bringing the bike in at 200kg.....even if your steel frame bike rides better.
Most bike journos rate the steel frame Honda CBR of the 90s over what came next.

Quick edit
....despite my vociferous defence of steel I really don't have a dog in this fight, in fact I may be a bit hypocritical as my new HT is aluminium and easily the best I've owned....as someone else said, geometry is more important....that said my steel Ragley and On-Ones were brilliant, my steel Dialled was rubbish.

Here's another nice couple of pictures of lovely steel frames to balance up all the unnecessary chat... 🙂

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Well last night I had a very pleasant evening in the shed brazing some chainstays to a frame. I don't think messing with smelly pots of resin, foam and CF would have been as nice. And when the next couple of frames are finished, I've got an itch to try doing a steel full sus.

I guess steel is slightly old tech - but mentioning Reynolds 531 is pretty odd - that is an old alloy (Manganese Moly) that hardly anyone uses (all I can think of are the similar alloy T45 tubes used by Curtis). Air hardening 853, 953 stainless, Spirit, Aermet, Oxplat etc are quite different to 531. And does old=bad anyway?

Saying that - your modern steel (and aluminium) tubes will still contain some of the "old stuff" in recycled form. I love materials that can be 100% recycled into high grade new products. Every foundry I've been to puts a pile of scrap back into the pot, and every extrusion plant had some kind of re-melt facility.

Can't say the same for carbon. I shudder every time the car industry blags on about using mass market composites - the scrapheaps of Trabants showed us why non recyclable / low grade recyclable bodyshells were a very bad idea.