High-end steel road bicycles vs carbon fiber bikes

[thomasbuzbee31]

How do high-end steel road bicycles compare in terms of performance, etc. to carbon fiber road bikes?

And what is best for a high-end road and racing bikes? Have more to do with the end results than the material being used.

 

[02gf74]

Best for racing? Surely all you need to do is see what the top cyclists use e.g. tour of france, olympics etc and the answer is carbon fibre.

Its a wonderous material, stiff and light. And its replacement of traditional materials goes beyond cycling, such as formula 1, tennis, rowing, sailing, darts etc.

 

[cce]

the last person to win the tour on anything other than carbon was Marco Pantani. Last steel was Indurain in 1994.

Today's carbon bikes can come in at the 6.8kg minimum while still packing deep section wheels and a power meter.

 

[02gf74]

A wooden racket was last used at Wimbledon in 1987.

 

[hamster]

It's a multi-dimensional problem. In terms of making the ultimate racing machine, then carbon all the way.

As an ownership proposition I'm not so sure. Steel is durable, shrugs off crashes and repairable. I watched someone wreck a carbon bike after sliding and high-siding it on a roundabout on the IOW Randonnee two years ago. A steel bike would have got a bit scratched up but survived. Carbon can be built to last - I raced on a boat with a 25 year old carbon mast for example, so it's more that the industry is going for lightness at any cost just like the fragile MTBs of the mid-90s.

Because the fashion is to make super-stiff carbon bikes, the steel bike may be rather nicer to ride all day. A carbon frame designed for some compliance would be wonderful. It's the niche that Titanium now seems to occupy.

 

[02gf74]

Because the fashion is to make super-stiff carbon bikes, the steel bike may be rather nicer to ride all day.

Steel maybe more comfortable but OP is asking:

And what is best for a high-end road and racing bikes? Have more to do with the end results than the material being used.

Results say carbon, not really sure what more is there to discuss??. I'd imagine most professionals would put up with a bit of discomfort if it meant winning.

 

[beepbeep]

Re:

Last year I sold a nice carbon road frame as it got replaced with a classic steel frame. I initially bought the steel frame on a whim as a second bike and fell in love with the subliminal ride qualities. Now it's the first bike.

The carbon frame was lighter, stiffer, a better acceleratior and probably faster on paper, but the steel frame feels faster, which puts a bigger smile on my face.

But each to his/her own, seems like aluminum is making a bit of a comeback too.

 

[hamster]

Quite: the usual paradox of faster vs. nicer!

 

[kingbling]

Got to agree with everyone here Carbon is faster. My retro carbon look kg121 is a nice bike to ride all day but its probably not as stiff as more modern frames and also 2kgs heavier at 8.8kgs.

 

[RadNomad]

Re:

My boss owns both at pretty much the highest quality level. A carbon Pinarello Dogma F8 with Dura Ace and a stainless steel Cinelli XCR with Campag super record. Both below or around the 7kg ballpark.

He says the difference is obvious. The Dogma is stiff as hell, no comfort but super responsive and accelerates like a rocket. By comparison the XCR is more comfortable and mellow, fast but less aggressive. Carbon for getting the most out of shorter punchy rides, steel for longer but less frenetic rides.

He talks as if he loves both but i sense that if he could keep only one of them he would keep the XCR, he often mentions the better comfort of steel (he is about 50 years old and his riding is recreational). But.. he loves the Dogma for posing at the cafe stops!