Question about steel frame quality

[12345]

Ok. So the recipe "buy a good old frame and add some used or NOS components" is a good way to get a valuable custom bike for a very low price.

What do you think about this 80s/90s Raleigh steel frame on the photo?

 

[WD Pro]

IMHO the dropouts suggest it's a cheaper end frame but I am sure someone who knows about Raleigh will correct me

To me you need to consider more than the frame material and the geometry when looking for 'quality' ...

I have a mass produced Marin and specialized - both middle of the range models. The quality of the welds and attention to detail on the Marin makes the specialized look like a school project

I am sure someone will be along to tell be they came out of the same factory but I can only report on what I have in front of me ...

The orange and the fat are nicely made to

WD

 

[doctor-bond]

Re:

Which steel, which frame - depends on what you want from your bike. I'm not sure what you mean by "a valuable custom bike", but a bit of time spent thinking about what you're going to use it for would be well spent.

The Raleigh pictured looks pretty sturdy. Good for flattish trails and carrying luggage and wearing mudguards.

If you need practicality, older larger framed bikes with braze-ones are brilliant value. Reynolds 501 and 531 are good tube sets; 501 is cro mo like the one pictured, but likely made with more care and skill. lugs are cool.

Tange prestige and its variants are excellent; springy and light, and used by many manufacturers.

My tip for value, lightness, sprightliness would be true temper tubes: KHS frames are very under rated and under priced. Can be made into speedy lightweights or shopping bikes.

 

[singletrackmac]

My definition of a mass produced frame is a frame that had been produced in larger amounts, that is not too expensive and also easily available, e.g. made by Bianchi, Giant, Marin, Wheeler, Specialized, Raleigh etc.

If the old frames are often as good as the modern ones, the main differences are only the geometry (today all MTBs have slope frames and a higher streering tube) and the disc brake mount.

Tubing diameter will also play a roll. The thicker the tubing the thinner the walls can be, for a lighter frame that is still stiff and responsive.

As other have said, I also think geo is very important and you'll want to get a bike with geo that matches the type of riding you want to do. For example 2 of my steels, both lugged, one with tange prestige tubing and one with larger diameter true temper OXII tubing are both quality steel frames, but ride very differently not so much because of the difference in steel, but mainly because of the geo.



My MB1 with Tange Prestige is built for more XC type trails, fast, compliant and very comfortable, but is not so good when the trail gets rough, on tight twisty trails or for bunny hoping and jumping. My singletrack with True Temper OXII is built for aggressive trail riding, very responsive, stiff, quick and easy to maneuver and a blast to jump and hop, but not as good on climbs, long stretches keeping speed or xc type rides where you want to be in a less aggressive riding position.



Another very important thing you may want to consider is how big of a tire you can fit on the frame. Frames from the 80's, like my MB1 often can't fit much more than a 2" tire, while my singletrack can easily fit a high volume 2.5" tire and can even fit a 27.5" in the rear (need a different fork to fit 27.5" in the front). For XC type riding the skinnier light tire works great, but for rough trail riding, fast cornering and jumping the high volume tire is a huge improvement in performance and can be run with much lower PSI for better traction and shock absorption. The high volume tire also provides about an 1' increase in diameter and runs just over 27", while the 2" wide tire is more of a true 26".

If your looking to convert an older steel frame into more of a modern rider, then the tire size the bike can fit might be something to consider since running high volume tires are one of the big advantages of modern frames.

 

[12345]

Both very nice bikes, but I would prefer the MB-1. Do you know the weight of the Trek and Bridgestone bike? What would you pay for those bikes in a good (functional, not much rust, some paint defects) condition?

I'm not a very aggressive biker and I use my mountain bike primarily as a touring bike for tours
on unmade roads and forest tracks. For this reason I prefer older mountain bikes, because they allow me to mount full-size mudguards and a rack. Another reason is that older MTBs are aesthetically more pleasing, they have a clean, elegant look and are not turgid like most modern bikes. Could you easily install a modern crank set in an old frame?

 

[dirttorpedo]

I think you're first question is difficult to answer, because most mass market bikes were made in the same factories in Japan and Taiwan in the heyday of steel mountain bikes. Example: I owned a Rocky Mountain Fusion (8 model and my brother owned a Ritchey Force (87 model) and they were effectively the same bike as Ritchey and Rocky Mountain partnered to have their bikes made by Toyo in Japan. I don't know which bikes came from which factories, but I'm sure that Stumpy's, Treks, Schwin's, Marin's, Kona's, Nishiki's, Diamondbacks, were all coming from a few factories in
Asia.

Tubing: I test road a lot of bikes before deciding on my final ride each time I bought a new bike and ended up on bikes made with most of the big brands. I don't ever recall one tube set being so much better than another that it made me decide that one bike was superior to another. It tended to be a combination of frame design and build that decided it for me which is why I never owned a GT or a Kona until recently.

Construction Technique: I think you're pretty much looking at lugged, vs. fillet brazed vs. TIG welded. I can't recall ever test riding a lugged mountain bike BITD (maybe the Bridgestone MB3?). Fillet brazed was on high end small batch custom bikes. Pretty much everything I saw in the 80's and early 90's was TIG welded so I don't think there is much to say there. What I have heard is that lugged is just as good as TIG, its just more expensive. I think you'd probably see more difference in frames built with oversized tubes vs. those with standard tubes, but again those standard tubed bikes would have been designed using older geometries.

Alloys: Others have covered this. Basically now we seem to have the same quality tube sets, just less choice.

Modern vs. Vintage: There are cheap modern steel mountain bike frames (on-one) and expensive custom ones and middle of the road ones (Soma, Surly, etc.). I think the quality is pretty much on par, but they would be hard to compare because the geometries are probably so different with the evolution of bike design. If you want disc brakes, I'd go for a modern frame rather than bodge together a vintage disc bike with an adapter.

 

[12345]

Thanks. The reason why I thought about welding a disc brake mount to an older frame and repainting this frame is that old bikes are often dead cheap and hence offer great value for the price. For example, the Raleigh frame in my previous post costs 10 € and I recently bought a Giant Coldrock in great condition that hadn't been used a lot for 60 € (including a lock, lights and mudguards). The Trek 970 and the Bridgestone MB1 (both in good/fair condition) are sold for 150 €. In contrast, a new middle-class steel frame costs several hundred Euros.

 

[singletrackmac]

I think you're first question is difficult to answer, because most mass market bikes were made in the same factories in Japan and Taiwan in the heyday of steel mountain bikes. Example: I owned a Rocky Mountain Fusion (8 model and my brother owned a Ritchey Force (87 model) and they were effectively the same bike as Ritchey and Rocky Mountain partnered to have their bikes made by Toyo in Japan. I don't know which bikes came from which factories, but I'm sure that Stumpy's, Treks, Schwin's, Marin's, Kona's, Nishiki's, Diamondbacks, were all coming from a few factories in
Asia.

All steel trek mtbs were made in trek's own factory in the U.S. except for the lowest end models starting in the late 80's. The low end models were made in the other few factories in Asia most likely to save money. The MB1 was made in Japan since Bridgestone is a Japenese company. I also have a '89 rockhopper comp which is a little more confusing. It's a German company, who put a sticker on the chainstay that says designed in the USA with an American flag, but then built the bike in Taiwan. OK

As far as build quality and ride goes for my three steels, the trek is by far the highest quality build and best riding. The investment cast lugs are beautiful with the trek name stamped in them, the forged drop outs are in perfect alignment to this day even after almost 25 years of abuse, the black paint with white speckle and pink highlights still looks sharp and is protecting the frame well, except for the spots it is scrapped off due to various crashes here and there. And that bike rides soooo nice. The frame is extremely responsive and so lively it's energetic. I literally feel a burst of energy every time I get on that bike.

The MB1 is good quality as well, but the lugs are not nearly as nice as the treks and I am not sure they are investment cast (I think they might be stamped) and the rear drop outs are not aligned with nearly the same precision. The paint is not very sharp and has dots of rust coming though on different spots on the bike. The bike does ride really nice, but is not on the same level of liveliness as the trek and is definitely not as responsive as the trek. The frame is very compliant, but almost too much as I can feel some back end noodliness when I push it hard. I don't get the same pop from this frame.

The rockhopper is decent enough riding frame but the build quality is no where in the same legue as the other two bikes. The welds are pretty clumsy looking and both the front and rear drop outs are not aligned very precisly with the fork being the worst. Paint is basic black with stickers over it that can just peel off with no protective coating over them. The ride is rather dull compared to the other two bikes and not very lively, but I don't feel unwanted flex from the frame.

Construction Technique: I think you're pretty much looking at lugged, vs. fillet brazed vs. TIG welded. I can't recall ever test riding a lugged mountain bike BITD (maybe the Bridgestone MB3?). Fillet brazed was on high end small batch custom bikes. Pretty much everything I saw in the 80's and early 90's was TIG welded so I don't think there is much to say there. What I have heard is that lugged is just as good as TIG, its just more expensive. I think you'd probably see more difference in frames built with oversized tubes vs. those with standard tubes, but again those standard tubed bikes would have been designed using older geometries.

Big name bike comanies like GT and Gry Fisher and others also used fillet brazing, but just on their high end models. Lugs are actually stronger then fillet or tig and reinforce the joints which is an advantage on touring frames and MTBs. Lugs also allow the bike to be repaired easier by being able to remove a damaged tube from the lugs and replace it. I also agree that the oversized tubes will make a big difference in feel vs standard tubs since the tube walls can be made thinner and still get the same strength. This makes the bike feel more lively and responsive while still being stiff.

 

[singletrackmac]

Both very nice bikes, but I would prefer the MB-1. Do you know the weight of the Trek and Bridgestone bike? What would you pay for those bikes in a good (functional, not much rust, some paint defects) condition?

I'm not a very aggressive biker and I use my mountain bike primarily as a touring bike for tours
on unmade roads and forest tracks. For this reason I prefer older mountain bikes, because they allow me to mount full-size mudguards and a rack. Another reason is that older MTBs are aesthetically more pleasing, they have a clean, elegant look and are not turgid like most modern bikes. Could you easily install a modern crank set in an old frame?

The singletrack frame weighs 5.04lbs and the MB1 weighs 4.95lbs and both bike come in around 27.5lbs complete stock.

Here in the states the mb1 will fetch a much higher price, maybe $400 to $500 and up depending on condition and buyer and typically available only on eBay. The singletrack can be found on Craig's list pretty easily and should go for $100 to $200. These are also available on eBay, but go for more money there (or at least has a higher asking price) of around $300 and up. I got lucky and found the mb1 on craigslist for what I think is a steal for $175 in great condition and except for the saddle, all original even the tires. You should be able to find a similar trek frame for pretty cheap. Someone was giving away the same exact frame I have on this site a while ago.

For disc brakes without welding you can try this, however,while it looks secure it's not the cleanest looking set up, but removable without altering the frame. http://www.shop.therapycomponents.com/B ... its_c7.htm

 

[Titiritero]

Re:

As many have said, modern day steel bikes are expensive because it is a minority market with low production numbers, but quality-wise the mid-top range steel bikes from the 90's are equal if not superior to today's offerings.

In the good old days, because everybody was producing steel bikes, a way to differentiate themselves was using branded tubing (Trek and Diamond Back with True Temper, Specialized and Scott with Tange, etc.) Nowadays that steel bikes are a niche, just saying a bike is steel is already a differentiating factor, and Surly or Rivendell sell "loads" of mid to expensive bikes using generic 4130 unbranded steel.

I also read somewhere that one of the reasons of steel decline was economical. Apparently welding is a bit harder to automatize with the thin steel tubes, while with the thick aluminium tubes (and nowadays the carbon casts) it was relatively easy to get some robots to produce thousands of bikes in very little time, therefore making aluminium bikes cheaper at equal weight to steel bikes, and therefore for manufacturers it was a no-brainer.

To add to that, people still think that an aluminium bike is lighter no matter what, even if they compare a nice high range steel model to a basic aluminium model (my friends are still surprised when my Breezer Lightning from 2012 is way lighter than some of their fancy aluminium bikes).

As to what steel to recommend, I would rather say set a budget, start looking, and whatever matches in terms of price and condition will do. At similar range, I don't think there was a huge difference between brands or tubing (although some experts might claim otherwise). My bikes are True Temper OX (Trek), Tange Infinity (Scott) and generic steel (Breezer) and as usual the only limitation factor is the rider, not the tubing More important I would say is the quality of the protective paint. My Treks have rock hard paint, while I need to be extra careful with the paint of the Scott as it chips and fades just by looking at it... The Breezer falls somewhere in the middle...