Steel road bikes …… upgrade thoughts

A steel frame generally will be heavier and probably not as aero dependent on whether you would otherwise get an aero carbon frame. So it will be slower. I have a 953 steel frame and it definitely doesn’t go as fast uphill. I doubt it would make much difference on flat roads. As ever it’s the engine that matters.

I’ve no doubt and engine upgrade would be more useful but I’m working on that!

In absolutely no use to you, I have a Ritchey Road Logic and I love it. I couldn't give a toss if it's slightly heavier (the excess weight on me is the problem, not the bike), or not as aero as something carbon or aluminium, I think it looks lovely and that's the most important thing.

Not this one, but looks like this one:

I have two steel road bikes, a Roberts and a Colnago. Both are great and any minuscule weight or aero difference doesn’t seem to be a major factor with my fat arse on the bike. A good quality steel bike will be a good bike, even up against carbon and it’s possible to build a very light steel bike (just a bit spendy!).

Thanks IHN.

Will I really notice 500g to 1kg difference when I have 5-8kg to “spare”!

The argument isn’t lost on me that I would immediately be 500g plus better off though!

I'm all for lightweight road bikes, but I reckon the difference is mainly in feel rather than a significant difference in speed, my steel gravel bike is 10kg with 40mm tyres and my alloy road bike is 8kg with 25mm tyres.

Obviously the gravel bike is slower but not by much, I still have PBs on tarmac set on the gravel bike! The road bike feels faster though, more immediate, quicker handling. It is still my favourite bike to ride for this reason and has a big motivational effect.

Soo... go steel if it makes you happy and you don't know any different, but you might be more inspired by something light and stiff 👍

The road bike feels faster though, more immediate, quicker handling.

Maybe because it hasn’t got 40 mm tyres on it, nor gravel bike geometry?

Yep, put 25c road tyres on the gravel bike and it will feel faster, more immediate, quicker handling etc,.

I have gone against the trend for massive tyres for gravel and use 33c lightweight CX tyres as they make the bike feel better to ride (steering better, handling better, more lively feeling) than the 40c tyres I tried (which were only 100g heavier)
Is the bike any quicker with 33c, not measurably no and on rough gravel it is probably slower but it feels better to me which is all that matters.

By way of contrast, I have a Pinnacle Arkose (posh parts, nothing stock) that I ride in winter or when it's wet and a very light carbon road bike (non aero, Ksyriums) I race and ride in summer on.

On the Arkose - with decent folding bead 28mm tyres - I can't get within literally minutes of my time on the nice bike on most longer road Strava segments.

Maybe because it hasn’t got 40 mm tyres on it, nor gravel bike geometry?

Very fair point, can't argue with that. Going forward I was considering 953 steel with posh wheels, would be a good opportunity to test the theory...

Got a lovely Shand steel road bike, it's not the lightest frame but with light stuff on it it's not particularly heavy. Aero makes a far bigger difference than weight unless it's pretty steep, your body position and set up make a huge difference here. Lower front end, narrower bars and some yoga make a massive impact on your aeroness. Had aero cervelo before, faster on the Shand as it's the perfect size and is longer/lower.

I've got a steel Enigma Elite HSS (non-disc) built up with Super Record and nice kit on. Just under 17lb which is plenty light enough for me.

Its all in the ride quality. I demoed lots of bikes before settling on the Enigma. The carbons were either brutally stiff or bolt upright comfort bikes, the Ti frames I tried were really comfy but just felt soft when you tried giving it some. I tried a couple of Condor steel bikes - the Acciaio rode lovely but was a bit pedestrian handling wise, the Super Acciaio handled great, but was too stiff for my 10 stone frame. The Enigma split the difference. There's zing to it - it wants to *go* when you stamp on the pedals, but it doesn't leave you beaten up either. There's give in it, but in a good way. I'm not a roadie by nature, but I just love riding the Enigma for the sheer enjoyment of riding that bike.

(to counter, I've ended up with 2 steel Genesis' - both bought second hand in a hurry, and both are a bit rubbish. The Flyer is fine as a working/commuter bike, but its a bit dull compared to the Condor Pista steel it replaced (same components) and the Fugio is just an inert lump and will be replaced as soon as I can find the right thing)

I have a Fairlight Streal (853 steel) with 28C tyres it weighs 9kg. I also have a Scott CR1 SL (super-duper carbon) with 25c tyres it weigs 7.6kg. The Streal corners like it's on rails but is all-day comfortable. The CR1 is flighty, twitchy, responsive and exciting for a couple of hours blast, but can get a bit irritating/tiring on longer rides. For the first 2 pedal strokes of a sprint the CR1 feels like it responds faster, after that I can't tell the difference. The difference in bike weight is about 2 water bottles full vs empty and is noticable as I lift the bikes out the garage. I certainly don't notice the difference in weight of a given bike when I set off with 2 full bottles and return in the evening with 2 empty bottles...The Steel bike is actually faster on rougher roads because a) it's more comfortable and b) it's more confidence-inspiring. I'd say geometry and design make much more difference than 1-2kg, or indeed frame material.

The biggest difference in speed between the two bikes is how long I choose to spend in the cafe on any given ride.

I think if you get a really nice steel frame it’ll be good - noting someone above had a 17lb steel road bike- but it costs a lot to make one light.

I’ve found my alloy bikes have felt a bit livelier than the carbon one I had - but the carbon one seemed slightly more direct at getting power down to the road. I think my current alloy bike is a bit harsh on the front end over bad road surfaces (Caad12 disc) but the rear is fine m.

In terms of outright speed on the flat I don’t think the weight difference in the frame materials is going to be much - it’s more down to the watts you can put out and your aero position on the bike.

I’d go as light as you can on the road bike though for the feel of it. My Caad 9 / Caad12 feel eminently nicer than the heavier Giant road bike I had quite a few years back. I think that was 21lbs vs about 18lbs. I’m on Ultegra di2 and hunt 4 season rod wheels with 25c gp4000’s on it. No exotic components - it’s all standard alloy stuff that came on the bike new. I imagine with some aero wheels / cutting of weight with some carbon bits it could get a bit faster but it’s decent for what I want it for.

Except I’ve hurt my back at the moment and the racey sort of position is a struggle at the moment 🤦‍♂️

@joebristol - I've been meaning to ask, did I sell you that CAAD9 many moons ago? Liquigas colours, Moots seatpost?

I'm no roadie, so take my observations bearing that in mind!

I've a Ti Pickenflick gravel (well, technically, CX) bike, with a second set of wheels with 30c slicks, for very occasional road use.

Its a nice enough 'road bike' for the half-dozen or so occasions I use it like that during the course of the year, and fine for 2-3 hour road rides. It would not likely be noticeably slower overall than a dedicated road bike.

However, I did a big road ride recently (Leeds to Scotland and back in a day) and borrowed a 'proper road bike', a Cannondale Synapse. I used it for a few prep rides too. It was a good spec (including some lovely carbon Zipp wheels). Overall, it was lighter, stiffer, faster, and more comfortable for long road rides (over 4 hours) than my roadified gravel bike. It made me want to find a way to buy a dedicated road bike (which I've never wanted before)

Guess it depends what kind of road bike you want, and what you want to do on it, but I guess the more that something is 'the tool for the job', the bigger difference it makes the bigger the rides you do.

Hi. If you want to go as fast as you can then carbon will be quicker as it will be lighter. Steel will be comfier but you will pay a penalty. How much a penalty depends on how good the frame is. A bog standard genesis equilibrium for example will generally be over 10kg and a Planet X carbon under 9. It’s all a balance in the end. A nice steel frame set is hard to beat.

@joebristol – I’ve been meaning to ask, did I sell you that CAAD9 many moons ago? Liquigas colours, Moots seatpost?

Nope - I got it brand new through cycle to work. It was 105 level with liquidgas colours- the ones that were more white than blue / green.

I did a few Tweeks but nothing major on it other than getting brakes that worked (105 rather than tektro)

Talk to Rourke. And fit a bigger gear to your fixed wheel (what are you riding at the moment? 42x16 won't cut it, you need 42x14 for a medium paced road group). Or join a nicer club.

Hi TiRed, currently running 42x15 on my fixie and that’s a reasonable ratio for most of my riding, not quick but I wouldn’t use it for group rides.

If you aren't interested in racing, then decent quality steel will potentially give you a more compliant ride in return for a weight penalty. Having had road bikes of all flavours over the years, I'll happily take the weight penalty of steel.

Decent steel bikes aren't cheap. I'm partial to Condor down in that there London for though.

I wouldn't worry too much about aero and weight, if you ride a heavier/less aero bike in the same group at the same pace week after week, you'll just adapt and have to be slightly fitter. That's my logic anyhow.

Also, the difference between cruising on the hoods and a fairly extreme position (forearms flat and shoulders rolled in) is ~40W. Which puts those single digit gains from aero frames into some perspective. They're faster, but not as fast as time in the gym and practice.

Carbon,steel or alu, all can be comfy or stiff or whatever. The attributes aren't tied to the material as much these days. Fwiw your current bike seems on the comfy side, I'd go for a light racier bike to compliment. And to contradict myself it would probably be carbon or alu, unless you had an great desire for a light and stiff steel bike.

Get what you fancy! It wont make much difference to your performance.

Personally I'd look for something nice locally and wouldn't be bothered about material. I had a modern Alu Merida (carbon forks) and found it very comfortable on long rides.

I went from Carbon (Giant Propel) to Titanium (Reilly Spectre) to Aluminium (CAAD13)

Weirdly the CAAD13 is a good mix of the first two - racy geo but still comfortable for 100-150km rides.

The only thing i miss is the longer wheelbase of the Reilly as it made smashing downhills much less scary...did make it a barge for sprinting though!

But there are plenty of steel frame-sets out there, someones already mentioned Fairlight, but a few others to look at:

Sour Cycles
Mason
Condor Cycles
Nordest
Brother Cycles

Fairlight Strael, hands down. It's only on the acceleration and hills you notice the extra weight and frankly, go lose a kg of bodyfat which will cost £0.

Two steel road bikes, both vintage. Ribble 653 Terry Dolan with Shimano 600/Ultegra, and a custom built Columbus SLX with full 7400 Dura Ace. Both around 9kg.

Superbe ride and sprightly, certainly better ride than my alloy/carbon road bike I had for 7 years. The SLX was custom made for me and has a unique paint job.

You'll have a kilo weight penalty with a steel frame over carbon/light alloy (e.g. Caad12). The Ribble is a shorter wheelbase, but both ride almost identical - the SLX is slightly stiffer roun the BB due to internal frame 'rifles'. Both very stable at speed 50-60 mph.

42x15 will see you dropped. You need the 14 cog. That’s geared for 21mph at about 90rpm. You’ll still get dropped on the downs but might bet back on uphill. My club are more forgiving as a fixed wheel tends to stop the macho surging and half-wheeling and makes for a smooth through and off.

As others have mentioned, don't discount the fun factor in a light quick handling bike. My Boardman adv 9.0 with road tyres is about 19lbs the same as my custom 853 steel framed bike. Both a great bikes to ride, but by far the most fun is my Canyon cf ultimate slx. Just under 15lbs and despite only being fractionally faster against a stopwatch feels loads quicker and is a blast to ride. Mostly I ride for fun so it's easily my most ridden bike.

I ride only for fun and over the years have had quite a few different frame sets on different materials with all other parts being the same (I was a bit of a habitual frames swapper when riding fixed gear as so easy to swap frames over)

The lightest I had was 6.2kg, the heaviest was 8+kg but as they all had very similar geometry they all felt the same when using same wheels and tyres.

The biggest change by far to feel of the bike was the tyres. Even an MTB with light 25c tyres on it feels lively.

If I wanted a steel frame I would get one as the way it looks (nice to me) is more of a concern that how it would handle (given same geometry as alternative)

If I’m going to take road cycling more seriously am I really giving away much to alloy or carbon frames?

Depends what you mean by seriously, if it's racing then maybe yes but otherwise no.
A lighter carbon bike has a more direct response for the first turn or 2 of the cranks accelerating. That's it imo. A kilo isn't noticeable anywhere else and the main difference in feel is the stiffness. A slimmer-tubed steel frame like the Ritchey Logic can be an inspiring ride if it suits your riding style. If you're one of those riders who looks like they're fighting the bike maybe get the stiff carbon frame but if you're lighter/smoother or just a bit more relaxed in your riding (not nec. less output) steel might offer something the modern bikes don't. Partic if you ride longer distances. Jury's out on whether max stiffness or 'just right' amount of flex is most efficient, I think it's subjective.

Ribble CGR 725? By definition designed for both road and gravel.

I would go steel with a carbon fork from the offset if thats what you want. Given where you ride is fairly flat you should with the right gearing (and fitness) be able to keep up in a group. Invest in good wheels with quality hubs/bearings. Once the bike is upto speed it should zip along.

For example in a more hilly area (exmoor where I live) I would go carbon. Having a bike that accelerates quick for steep hills makes all the difference.

I've got a Ritchey Road Logic for the summer, it's a lovely thing to ride.

I've  a engine11 dirtee as my gravel/road bike, steel frame and posh wheels. I'm cirtainly no roadie though and generally ride on my own.

I've had posh carbon road bikes when I was younger and fitter and I still couldn't keep up with my mates that regarded them selves as road riders before MTB. So imo if you want to keep up with your mates, it means dedicating more time to riding on the road and nothing more.

My option on road equipment is that aero frames save very little time over an hour for a regular riser - prob less than a minute, so are more of a style marketing thing, unless you find one that fits well, is comfortable and suits your riding. Fancy wheels are cheaper and the aero benefits are bigger, so I'd rather have a comfortable steel frame with posh wheels. Tyres also make a big difference on the same bike, and can have bigger benefits than saving a couple hundred grams or aero profiles.

Fairlight Strael is what you need!

i've got two, a Condor Fratello as a winter road (takes mudguards). Also a De Rosa Corum as a summer road. both a bit dated now but they both are lovely to ride, can be built light enough if you want too. if i was buying now though id get a fairlight strael i think, instead of both the above as it covers all the types of riding i like to do. (def not racing and similar to your description)

I also have a steel gravel bike (singular kite) which i ride the most, I've ridden the kite with narrow road tyres its great but its not as suitable as either the fratello or de rosa on the road, they feel a bit faster by degrees. probably down to the tyres or the psychological effect of lycra?

Saw https://www.merlincycles.com/merlin-all-road-steel-deluxe-grx-810-gravel-bike-267719.html earlier for first time on site.

If I’m going to take road cycling more seriously am I really giving away much to alloy or carbon frames?

Nope.
Unless you're going to be dropping several grand on a carbon wonder machine the difference will be negligible.
Spending time and effort setting the thing up properly will give you more gains than 5% stiffness "improvement" and half a kilo weight saving.
There is also loads of low hanging fruit for aero gains too.
I've got a fairly state of the art carbon wonder machine and a 20 year old steel with modern gear. On most of my loops round here the speed/time/power etc is pretty much indistinguishable between the two.

My winter bike is a different matter altogether!

Just to be the person who argues…..having light aero carbon and heavier steel, my money would be on carbon and aero all day.
Steel looks amazing if built correctly, but it’s noticeably slower.
As a former racer I have spent hours and hours doing testing specific for my setup. The Canyon Aeroad with the deep carbon wheels is the fastest bike I’ve owned. Just over 7kgs with 65mm wheels. But it’s a bit plain to look at and it’s not a bike I’ve ever been “in love” with, but it’s a quick bike.
Now personally I’m older and no longer racing so Id be buying steel and trying to maintain a level of fitness to keep up with the group.
I was losing something close to 20 watts between bikes(can’t remember the full details as it was 2018 when I last looked at the data). Down to a number of factors, but bike fit being an important one, my steel bike was slightly more relaxed than the Aeroad. I don’t really know why but the Canyon feels really good on climbs as well. Quite surprising for an aero bike. I’ve had other aero bikes that didn’t feel as good as the Canyon on a climb, Trek Madone and Canyon Systemsix.
I’ve also had a 6kg lightweight bike and it felt amazing. One of the few bikes I’ve regretted selling. Tempted to build up another Uber lightweight bike but now I’m an old fat porker prob not worth it!

Pick your steel carefully. Many a dimwitted journalist has spouted on about steel being springy, forgiving, lively even. It can be but many a modern bike is anything but. The steel has all sorts of fancy name but you can bet that if it is the house special it will be gas pipe.Probably over engineered to get through modern safety standard but thats another can of slimy thinngs.
My old Raleigh rides nicely but thats 531c throughout. Many modern bikes have the Reynolds badge but that doesn't mean that all the tubes are decent.
Some years ago I made the mistake of buying a Cotic X. Boat anchor! Several Planet X Kaffenbacks were much the same.
I am after another nice steel frame to bung my modern Campag stuff on.

spouted on about steel being springy, forgiving, lively even. It can be but many a modern bike is anything but.

Totally agree - like Ti and carbon the stiffness/flex balance can vary a fair bit between frames and what works for one rider won't fell good for another.

The steel has all sorts of fancy name but you can bet that if it is the house special it will be gas pipe.

Many modern bikes have the Reynolds badge but that doesn’t mean that all the tubes are decent.

You can do great things with simple crmo and heat-treated crmo is about as good as it needs to be. The real premium tubes aren't always used optimally, they can be there for the badge. The waffle spouted comes in when the 'ride quality of 853 / Spirit' etc comes up. Sometimes that'll be the ride quality of unbranded crmo too. Tube dimensions have a ride quality, brands/labels don't - it's just that 853 might be able to achieve a ride quality (read, level of flex via thinner+slimmer tubes) if used optimally that crmo can't while still passing EN tests.
Someone could spec a really nice zingy frame with unbranded crmo tubes from a mill in Asia and they could spec an identical frame with the lower-range Columbus or Reynolds tubes from the same mill. The frames would have same ride quality.

My point exactly. Rode a big, (British), name Reynolds frame. Horrid.(But not as bad as my X) 520 label on it as proudly badged as Reynolds. True enough but could a sales person tell me what was what? Nope. Indeed nor could the importer. A few big name stickers don't make a nice ride.
Equally my carbon Chinerello Dogshite frame rides wonderfully and to me is nicer than a mates Argon 18.
Just, OP, do your research.

You need to ride the frame before you know thought don't you, which can be a problem if buying one. The most comfortable frame I have ever owned was a 1971 Mercian 531 track frame. It was just 531 like a lot of frames but for whatever reason it just had a quality to it that no other frame has had. Was it because it was 30+ years old (at the time) and maybe tubes were more giving (or maybe near end of life!), who knows.

Or, save a bucket load of cash. And get some nice 25/28c tyres and a bigger (48/50T) chainring for your current bike and see if that helps keeping up on group rides?

Or even cheaper, find a nicer riding group that won't drop you at the first opportunity?

Handling = geometry
Weight = material
Stiffness = tube diameter

High end steel allows thinner tube walls, so lighter than low end, but the diameter is also increased so the frame is stiffer. My kona paddy wagon has perfect 73 degree parallel geometry and handles fabulously well it’s not the lightest steel and it’s not that stiff. Going to nicer 853 would make such a frame stiffer and lighter but it might not ride as well. 531c is that nice blend of the second two and the “skinny” tubes makes for that just so stiffness for weight.

Carbon and alloy trump steel on the second two as well, but geometry is really what matters. Poor geometry will never stop a bike feeling slow and sluggish regardless of material and weight. Decide which geometry you want before material.

I have a Ritchey Swiss Cross Disc as a road bike, and I was looking into whether I was missing out on weight/speed compared to a carbon bike. Not for competitive reasons, but I was curious!

I borrowed my colleagues high spec Canyon Ultimate CF race bike which has carbon integrated everything and weighs mid-7kg's. For me it felt livelier/faster but actually wasn't on country roads near me, it didn't hold speed as well especially over broken road surfaces and felt a lot more nervous. The Eureka moment though was when I took his Mavic Cosmic carbon wheels off and fitted them to my Ritchey! Absolutely transformed it and I went straight out and bought a set second hand, it was the best of both worlds for me. I had my comfortable stable bike, but with a noticeable amount of extra kick and response on the climbs/sprints and a couple of mph of 'free' speed on the flats.

TLDR; If you like your current bike, treat it and yourself to some nice wheels.

'High end steel allows thinner tube walls, so lighter than low end, but the diameter is also increased so the frame is stiffer.' How's the durability if you go to very thin large diameter tubes 😉 And crash resistance?

^ That's it, dent resistance is the main problem with larger OD thin wall steel. 853 will be more dent-resistant than CrMo via yield strength and hardness. Whether that'll make a difference when your bike falls against a post, who knows.
Common to go thinner wall but not necessarily larger OD with the higher grade steels - you feel the change in stiffness from the OD changes but wall thickness change is more subtle I'd say (unless going from extremes). So mainly lower weight with the flex difference secondary.

I built an 853 gravel bike. On the whole very happy with it but 2.1kg frame weight and not exactly springy, makes me wonder if it's actually 853! 😂

In fairness I told the builder I was reasonably heavy and had flexed wheels in to stays on previous aluminium frames, so I think he specced oversized or super over-sized tubes.

Not sure what my point is though, perhaps just to agree with the folks saying it's not the material but how you build it!

If you can, go and try a ride on a Specialized Aethos. If its ride quality you're after then this has it in spades. It's close to having the best of all worlds, some say it has a feel reminiscent of the best steel frames- a slight spring to it - while being obviously a lot lighter. I'm keen on balanced 'comfort with performance', more like the old classic TDF bikes used to be, I'd struggle to see how anyone would need more comfort than the Aethos unless your local roads closer resemble farm tracks...which some clearly do now. Then if you're still convinced you want steel, compare it back to back to a Ritchey Road Logic and go get one of those...or get one made for you like a Rourke, that would be a specialness one cant just get off the shelf.

Thanks all for the comments so far.

I don’t get too hung up on what the tubing badge says. Having ridden steel bikes for a while now I think I’ve ticked a good few off from across the manufacturers. Some of the nicest riding frames, IMHO, have defied their tubing badge.

The Strael looks lovely (Ultegra mechanical) but I’d probably want to go frame and forks and build it up over winter. Anyone know if they do test rides - didn’t spot it if they do in the website.

The idea is to try and build a bike that will be kept for a while - as a serial frame swapper this may be tricky - appeals but it makes getting it right the first time all the harder!

That Merlin looks interesting.

Don't get hung up on the tubing badge, ohh nooo.

There is a 'zuzzyness' about the way steel frames/forks handle road buzz - it just smooths them out, although that feel may go a bit with carbon forks. Another good thing about handbuilt bikes, is that they usually don't get speed wobble like some off the peg stuff. Never had it with my SLX frame, and only had it with the 653 when I was hit by a very strong side wind doing 50 mph, just slowed slightly, then sped up again.

Just to be the person who argues…..having light aero carbon and heavier steel, my money would be on carbon and aero all day.

TBH same here - got an old Specialised roubiux disk with the gobler seat post and it's very nice riding experience also had a Non-disk Venge which was a loverly thing but not as comfy as the roub. But the noise of the deep disks on it and the sharpness of the handling.

I think obsessing about the materials a bad route - its all about the ride and what your planning on using it for, you need to get your leg over a few and see what bike you like.

I’m keen on balanced ‘comfort with performance’, more like the old classic TDF bikes used to be,

Exactly. So many of those bikes would be classed as noodles by many now (or by me a decade ago) and yet you watch an old clip of Hinault attacking up the lower ramps of Alpe D'Huez in the big ring and tell me frame flex is a problem. They all had the same 'problem' so it was fair and evens in racing but the point is, none of us will ever ride like that and his bike was well up to it.

I think he specced oversized or super over-sized tubes

Super OS is pretty common on modern frames. Most common maybe? Some go larger still on the DT, 38 or 40mm. Pic shows common 'classic' combinations, butting and wall thickness aside.
I have steel road bikes with super OS TT and DT (std 28.6 ST) and std OS tubes. The super OS frame is also compact. Big difference in the ride feel in terms of the flex under cornering and pedalling loads. I have to push the super OS to feel the spring, the other bike is more flexible and has the classic 80s road bike feel.

So many of those bikes would be classed as noodles by many now

Probably explains why the 1971 Mercian frame I has was the most comfortable feeling frame I have owned. Noodly, who knows as I only have one bike at a time so nothing to directly compare it with and I don't put out enough power to get worried about any frame flex robbing me of precious watts.

I have to push the super OS to feel the spring

I recognise this exactly! First time I noticed any sort of 'spring' was getting carried away on rocky Lakes descents with didn'thurt on my tail.

It's all very well having a compliant frame but not if you end up pinch flatting tubeless tyres and dinging rims 😂

I know this is boring suggestion compared to new frame etc, but have you considered just chucking a few quid at a second hand steel road bike and just seeing how it goes for you?
Yes, shifters etc will be dated and it'll be rim brakes, but it'll give you a feel for how much the geometry and gearing make a difference compared to your gravel bike.

This is what I am doing:

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/212733/?offset=4575

You can't beat the appeal and aesthetics of an old skinny tubed steel frame IMO.

Yes, shifters etc will be dated and it’ll be rim brakes

To be honest, and especially since OP said his local riding was mostly flat, the rim brakes would be no bad thing and would offset a good chunk of the extra weight of a steel frame assuming approx 300g extra for a disc brake setup

Followign my previous rather flippant comment aboout finding better riding mates who won't drop you...

How about a set of really nice wheels and (say) a new 50T chainring? On my local rlatively flat rides on an 11-28 cassette, I rarely drop out of the 50T on my triple chainset, so a new wheelset with some light tyres and an appropriate gear selsction will probably get you close to the perfomrance of a new bike, for less money and with nicer components...

@andykirk I made the mistake of joining the Neo Retro Velo facebook page. It has put many similar expensive and unnecessary thoughts in my head, but that's not unusual!

A bike is so much more than frame material. Wheels make a huge difference, as does fit and saddle. Groupsets also. Its the sum of the parts that gives the performance. I’ve got a Strael, with hunt aero wheels and sram force axs, i ve had a few bikes in my time but this one seems to do everything well and i wouldnt swop it for any bling bike. So much so that ive sold all my other road bikes.