Why 'STEEL IS REAL' - the science bit!

[shaun]

Who is suggesting that Reynolds et al are wasting their time? There is clearly a market for well designed, well built steel frames, but in my view steel has been superceded as the frame material of choice by titanium and newer composites.

You are right 'Russell', I am from a marketing background and bikes made of composites and titanium sound 'sexy' in the advertising and impress anyone whether they are a keen cyclist or not. Most first time cyclists imagine a steel framed bike as a low end bike from Argos for £80. This is the reason why manufacturers can't sell too many £2k top end steel bikes when you can get an impressive showy FS or composite for that sort of money. Its a shame because a high end steel bike is a blast to ride because of the way the back end feels like it has springs in it that push you forward with every pedal stroke. My Ti and Aluminium bikes ride smooth, nice and fast, but the way my new retro Reynolds 853 bike seems to 'uncoil' and push me forward on acceleration is highly addictive and I can now see what all the fuss is about. Even if I was buying a brand new bike today, 853 would be my first choice of material.

 

[apache]

Great thread - not seen any sign of anything amounting to science yet though.

You have to agree steel is best, after all that's what F1 cars are made of.

I expect there is a place for all, and it is a personal preference. I have yet to ride a titanium frame, but, and I generalise a lot here, I find the steel bikes I've ridden have been nicer over distance, and perhaps more 'fun' in a chuckable sort of way. The aluminium bikes (particularly my modern bike) I've ridden seem more direct and accurate in an 'I think it, and the bike does it' kind of way though can be tiring over distance, particularly my hardtail.

Composites? I dare say they are totally trustworthy these days, but I just don't think I'd have total trust in critical parts, and that would impact my riding enjoyment. I know this is probably irrational, but I'm sure bike companies don't spend the amount of money aircraft / car companies spend on design and longevity testing etc.

Personal, definitely, but it is surely ridiculous to single out a material as the deciding factor on whether a bike rides well or not. A huge amount of importance has to be placed on the designer's skills with his chosen material.

AND, to the OP, after your first post I just KNEW you were involved in marketing.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Great thread - not seen any sign of anything amounting to science yet though.

Did you not see my link above, it's got numbers, funny units and graphs. here that, graphs. So there you have it Science.

 

[apache]

Great thread - not seen any sign of anything amounting to science yet though.

Did you not see my link above, it's got numbers, funny units and graphs. here that, graphs. So there you have it Science.

God! Sorry! Didn't realise you had graphs... :shock:

 

[shaun]

AND, to the OP, after your first post I just KNEW you were involved in marketing.

.........whoops, hoping nobody would notice!

 

[MikeD]

it is surely ridiculous to single out a material as the deciding factor on whether a bike rides well or not

Quoted For Truth

 

[shaun]

Great thread - not seen any sign of anything amounting to science yet though.

.......should have gone to Specsavers! :facepalm:

 

[shaun]

it is surely ridiculous to single out a material as the deciding factor on whether a bike rides well or not

Quoted For Truth

100% correct.

My Litespeed Ti rides well and is very serious, light and fast, my Cannondale HT rides well and is very fast but harsh after a while, my FS rides well and is plush and smooth but a bit slow, and finally my Reynolds 853 Kona rides well. So yes all well designed bikes ride, as you put it, well.....but its the steel one that gives me the biggest grin of them all. I like riding all my bikes, but this latest one, although not the fastest or lightest, I just simply love the ride and 'feel' of the thing!

 

[highlandsflyer]

There is clearly a market for well designed, well built steel frames, but in my view steel has been superceded as the frame material of choice by titanium and newer composites.

Certainly composites are favoured in the upper reaches of many makers' ranges. This is more to do with the perception of them, and the ability to make a good margin on them.

Steel and aluminium are by no mean done though, if you look at the majority of mid range bikes aluminium is the material of choice, as is steel if you look at boutique frames.

Ti is still relatively rare, and carbon composites tend to be favoured for specific types of mountain bikes, at a premium price level. Neither could be considered as 'chosen' over steel or aluminium in the majority of cases, especially based on the volumes sold.

At the end of the day, like carbon in domestic car production, it is overkill for most applications, when more performance gains can be had in other areas at less cost.

Steel happens to provide a compliant ride at a cheap price point, and is 'easy' to work. Relatively.

Composites offer light weight super strong constructions, which are actually rather 'lifeless' and 'uncomfortable'.

This can be ameliorated by the use of other materials.

I tend to look at composites as great in harmony with other more traditional materials.

If there is a good reason not to continue using steel for the areas it works best in, and composites where they don't take away the 'feel' of a heavily human interfaced machine, then I am yet to hear it.

Russell is right of course, there are web sites dedicated to twenty year old composites already.

The way they are made now is improved perhaps, but as SBR said, one little whack on a top tube leads to a frame lifetime of doubt. Unless you are truly oblivious to danger.

 

[02gf74]

One point that has been overlooked - or at least I did not spot it.

Aluminium is more common in the earth's crust yet the process to extract it was not invented until 1886 when Charles Martin Hall developed a commercial process for producing aluminum (ok, so I googled ). Aluminum remain unknown until discovered 1825 by Hans Christian Oersted. (Ok, so I googled that too )

Whereas iron and steel was around in the iron age but mass production did not take off until the Bessemer process about 30 years earlier. (I knew this bit )

So man has worked with iron based products for a lot longer so there is a huge amount of knowlege of steel alloying, fabrication etc and I guess for the Industrial revolution the disadvatnage of the weight of iron/steel was not an issue. .... which is why bicycles were made from steel for over 100 years (although I do recall picture of the predecessor being made from wood).