High-end steel road bicycles vs carbon fiber bikes

[pigman]

interesting article I noticed this morning:
http://stories.worldsteel.org/innovatio ... l-cycling/

yep, interesting, but Genesis's market is mainly UK domestic and hasn't got the budget to produce carbon frames in moulds. Their claim to professional racing on the continent will likely be 3rd rate races, not classics and grand tours, and so they can sell bikes on the hype of "continental pro racing kit" to those not really in the know.
It's also useful to note Trott and Kenney train on steel frames, not race on them. This effectively tells me they're fine for non-competitive stuff, but don't cut it when there's a number on your back. I'm also left wondering how often they train on steel - does that one ride on steel with probably a photoshoot at the end, let the manufacturer let us think it's their bike of choice?

 

[NeilM]

Re:

Madison Genesis team started using 953 frames for all their competitions in 2015, I think last year was the first year they started to use carbon bikes, but not for all their races.

http://www.madisongenesis.co.uk/

 

[964Cup]

Re:

I have a fairly wide variety of bikes, including steel, aluminium, carbon, titanium and carbon with alloy lugs. Ultimately carbon will always be faster, since it can better be tuned to give the right shapes and stiffness characteristics.

It's also vastly more than 600g lighter than steel - for example, my Condor Super Acciaio *frame* is 1800g (size 5, while my entire Cervelo R5Ca frameset, including forks, headset and BB is 1000g. Built up with the standard Condor full carbon fork, Condor headset and standard BB30, the Super Acciaio is 2270g - or 1.27kg heavier than the Cervelo. In its lightest build, the Cervelo is 5.3kg with pedals. You can't do that with steel.

However, when weight isn't a deciding factor, steel gives a ride quality that most carbon frames aren't built to deliver - an absorbency that adds some fluidity to one's riding.

Steel is also better suited to the every day knocks of cycling, and (given this is Retrobike) just looks right. This is not true of the Condor, which has all sorts of weird hydroformed tube shapes and is lugless, but is very much true of my Zullo and of other classic lugged frames.

Classic looks aside, though, in my view titanium does everything steel does better than steel - lighter, better ride quality, looks good etc. So although I have steel bikes for looks, I ride carbon for speed and titanium for distance.

Let's not forget aluminium, either. Ride quality tends to be harsh, but it's light, stiff, cheap and tough. There's a reason why crit bikes tend to be alloy.

(oh - and carbon with alloy lugs? Haven't ridden a modern frame with this construction - IndieFab XS, for example - but my ALAN is great fun. About as stiff as cooked pasta, but remarkably comfortable and [I think] rather cool. Apparently you can see the rear triangle moving around like a thing possessed if you're behind me in a sprint.)

 

[02gf74]

Re: Re:

However, when weight isn't a deciding factor, steel gives a ride quality that most carbon frames aren't built to deliver - an absorbency that adds some fluidity to one's riding.

not sure Cannondale, who made the scalpel (flexible carbon fibre chain stays) would agree.

I really don't understand why we are on page 4. It is as if the retrobike community are up in arms because somebody is saying or implying steel is no good, nobody said that, and it isn't. Back to OP question, which was which is faster and the answer is carbon.

re: carbon fibre darts (many a true word said in jest it seems :facepalm:
http://www.unicorn-darts.com/range/dart ... arbon.aspx

 

[964Cup]

Re: Re:

not sure Cannondale, who made the scalpel (flexible carbon fibre chain stays) would agree.

Sure - and Cervelo make a big fuss about how the "pencil thin" seat stays on my R5s are supposed to give better ride quality - and they do, compared to say an S5 (which has the same absorbency as reinforced concrete) - but nothing like an old-school steel frame or Ti.

I really don't understand why we are on page 4.

Cos it's cold and wet and horrid outside, and we're bored, and have nothing better to do.

Oh. Maybe that's just me.

 

[cce]

Re: Re:

I really don't understand why we are on page 4.

Cos it's cold and wet and horrid outside, and we're bored, and have nothing better to do.

Oh. Maybe that's just me.

I'm at work....

 

[pigman]

Re: Re:

I really don't understand why we are on page 4. It is as if the retrobike community are up in arms because somebody is saying or implying steel is no good, nobody said that, and it isn't. Back to OP question, which was which is faster and the answer is carbon.

I take heart that we are on page 4 and no one has dissed any bike or anyone's preference for a type of bike. Just a good discussion. I was expecting one or several of the usual comments like ...

1. if steel was good enough for Merckx, then it's good enough for anyone on here
2. Lose a few Kg fatty and ride a steel bike
3. I hammer the local chaingang on my 30 yr old steel bike, so carbon is useless

... and so far, none of those have been said - all is good

 

[JSH]

Re: Re:

I really don't understand why we are on page 4. It is as if the retrobike community are up in arms because somebody is saying or implying steel is no good, nobody said that, and it isn't. Back to OP question, which was which is faster and the answer is carbon.

I take heart that we are on page 4 and no one has dissed any bike or anyone's preference for a type of bike. Just a good discussion. I was expecting one or several of the usual comments like ...

1. if steel was good enough for Merckx, then it's good enough for anyone on here
2. Lose a few Kg fatty and ride a steel bike
3. I hammer the local chaingang on my 30 yr old steel bike, so carbon is useless

... and so far, none of those have been said - all is good

Well said

 

[JSH]

Re: Re:

I'm going out on for a couple of pints later so stand by, I might say them

 

[cab3086]

I owned a mid range carbon bike, had a 1 off on slipery corner... the bike rode ok and it looked like just some paint chips, I had a bike shop take a look and the frame was totalled, cracked from the impact.
I now own an 853 steel frame half the price, a bit more weight (doesn't make that much difference to us non pro riders) and rides lovely and smooth, more comfortable than the carbon frame (i did swap the components over). Just my option but carbon is not worth the money, if you can afford to write it off when you have an off then thats your call...