Bike Frame Stiffness(cyclist.co.uk)
cyclist.co.uk
Bike Frame Stiffness
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/11046/bike-frame-stiffness
231 comments
In bike messenger circles there is a phrase "steel is real". The idea being that when you inevitably eat shit going around a corner you might dent your frame, but the chances that a steel frame will crack or shatter is basically zero. And more importantly dings and scratches don't cause the structural integrity to degrade like happens with aluminum or carbon fiber. Your steel fork is bent? Hit it with a hammer until it's true again!
A year ago, my titanium fork broke (while driving rather slowly on good tarmac, photo here https://twitter.com/dothebart/status/1486765955254530051), and the titanium frame got a few cracks as well. My motto "the last bike I'll ever buy" collided with reality. Fortunately, I got away with just a few scratches - just a minute later, I would have been at 60+ kph downhill.
My new bike has a steel frame. I love it, but titanium was more flexible and more comfortable. And of course titanium is nerdier! :-)
One of my coaches in college raced for a pro/semi-pro team. Their first race of the season was on new/pre-production bikes straight from one of the major manufacturers. 3, I repeat, 3 steer tubes broke in that 1 race. It was a really rugged race, but needless to say the manufacturer had to scramble to fix the forks before going to production.
One guy was going over railroad tracks and his handlebars just came off. Not what you want in the middle of a cat-1/pro peloton.
One guy was going over railroad tracks and his handlebars just came off. Not what you want in the middle of a cat-1/pro peloton.
That's what happens when one tries to shave grams off of the weight.
I had one of the fork ends break off a steel fork. Fortunately I was going at less than a walking pace, navigating out of a store parking lot. I was 2 miles from home, and just walked the bike while planning its replacement.
It was a break that I would have noticed much sooner, had I regularly inspected it, because the other side was half broken off.
The funny thing is, I play in a band, and when I told my story that night, 3 guys in the band offered to weld it.
It was a break that I would have noticed much sooner, had I regularly inspected it, because the other side was half broken off.
The funny thing is, I play in a band, and when I told my story that night, 3 guys in the band offered to weld it.
I'd get the drummer to put together the rig which holds the parts in place, bass player to make the crucial spot welds and then the lead guitarist to go ape shit with the rest, while the singer goes whoo yeah!
> my titanium fork broke
Yikes! Fork failure is the stuff of nightmares. I'm glad you're okay.
Among the participants of a local riding club in my area, I've met two people with custom titanium frame builds who told me that their frames cracked within a few years of use.
Yikes! Fork failure is the stuff of nightmares. I'm glad you're okay.
Among the participants of a local riding club in my area, I've met two people with custom titanium frame builds who told me that their frames cracked within a few years of use.
> Yikes! Fork failure is the stuff of nightmares
Still have nightmares about a fork that, during a mountain bike descent 30 years ago, started oscillating increasingly until it bent and locked the wheel perpendicular to my vector - and my buddy still has dreams of me acting Superman along his ride, for a few short instants...
Still have nightmares about a fork that, during a mountain bike descent 30 years ago, started oscillating increasingly until it bent and locked the wheel perpendicular to my vector - and my buddy still has dreams of me acting Superman along his ride, for a few short instants...
Titanium can have problems with oils I've been told. Seeping into crystal defects and propagating. Typically I've been told they use polymer coatings to prevent the ingress. But with scratches and lubricants I think this would be much more common if it was a real thing.
I've always thought a spring bronze/brass frame would be fun. Even better modulus of elasticity, but the strength to weight is much worse.
Also keep waiting to see flash bainite frames.
I've always thought a spring bronze/brass frame would be fun. Even better modulus of elasticity, but the strength to weight is much worse.
Also keep waiting to see flash bainite frames.
[deleted]
OMG the image is terrifying! Glad you were ok...
Glad you're ok. I wish the anti helmet crowd from the Netherlands from a different thread 2 weeks ago would read this.
The “anti helmet crowd” wouldn’t have any issue reading be this. Wearing helmets when you’re on a sports bike is very common in the Netherlands. It’s just not common on Dutch commuters cycles, but then again, these do not have this failure mode. Sports bikes in general have much less margin for failure, and thus fail more often and catastrophic than a solid steel bike.
Right, all commuter bikes are made
of solid steel and steel bikes never break. Got it.
You are very unlikely to crash at 15-20kph and even less likely to hit your head at such speed in a very upright position.
In fact the odds aren't bigger than when running. Do you think runners should wear helmets?
I chose to wear or not my helmet depending on the conditions. Running errands nearby on my girlfriend's lady bike? I don't use it. Riding on mostly separated bicycle paths at my girlfriend's slow pace, same. Riding 3h on the roads or trails on my road and mountain bikes, I wear it.
In fact the odds aren't bigger than when running. Do you think runners should wear helmets?
I chose to wear or not my helmet depending on the conditions. Running errands nearby on my girlfriend's lady bike? I don't use it. Riding on mostly separated bicycle paths at my girlfriend's slow pace, same. Riding 3h on the roads or trails on my road and mountain bikes, I wear it.
Typical Dutch commuter bikes are made of steel. And yes, steel breaks, but the failure mode of a solid steel fork is much much different from a titanium, aluminum or carbon fork. They bend, crack and at some point break, but they’ll typically not snap like this because steel is much less brittle than any of those materials.
Also, speed matters. Going 15 or 50 when the thing breaks makes a difference.
Also, speed matters. Going 15 or 50 when the thing breaks makes a difference.
> Also, speed matters. Going 15 or 50 when the thing breaks makes a difference.
Isnt this an argument that helmets are more important for passenger vehicles? After all, car accidents cause about 10x more head trauma in the usa.
Isnt this an argument that helmets are more important for passenger vehicles? After all, car accidents cause about 10x more head trauma in the usa.
Passenger vehicles from this century come with airbags that significantly reduce head trauma. Three point seatbelts have been mandatory in all seating positions for longer, IIRC, and significantly reduce the likelyhood of head vs pavement collisions.
But, if absolute safety is paramount, you do want a five point harness, flameresistant coveralls, neck support, and a helmet, sure.
But, if absolute safety is paramount, you do want a five point harness, flameresistant coveralls, neck support, and a helmet, sure.
When you're driving 15 km/h on a flat road accelerating and decelerating at 0.1 g (and almost always only in the horizontal direction) - you don't have the structural requirements for the bike that sport cycling has, yes.
I’m 100% Dutch. I ride road bikes and commuter bikes. I’ve never in my life seen a steel commuter bike break like that. They rust, they bent and they scratch, but they won’t break. Or maybe if you buy a very iffy brand?
As a road cyclist I go 30-50 km/h with a helmet. And as a commuter I’ll keep a moderate 20 km/h without a helmet. Big difference in terms of kinetic energy.
As a road cyclist I go 30-50 km/h with a helmet. And as a commuter I’ll keep a moderate 20 km/h without a helmet. Big difference in terms of kinetic energy.
I'm pretty sure the primary kinetic energy you need to worry about in a fall is the vertical drop.
You are much more likely to catch your fall with your hands when you have an accident with your city bike vs a road bike.
Biking at less than 25km/h just isn't that dangerous (unless a car hits you)
Biking at less than 25km/h just isn't that dangerous (unless a car hits you)
being more likely to catch your fall needs to be computed against how likely the falling is, and how likely injury is. This just confuses things, much easier to look at how many injuries occur.
In the worst case the speed your head would hit the ground at would be about 15 km/h.
it's not really a theoretical problem, people actually die or experience brain damage from falling over while standing still; we know a fall of that distance is dangerous. Helmets reduce the impact and save lives and brains. The only real question is the frequency of the falls taking place from bicycles.
Oh, bike helmets. I missed that thread, and I don't want to start yet another endless internet discussion about helmets, but let me point out one thing: the helmet I did wear likely wouldn't have saved my life, had the fork breakage happened one minute later.
I don't think any "anti helmet crowd" would claim that helmets never ever help. Just that it's rare enough that it may not be worth the inconvenience.
After all, are you strapping on a helmet while you're out walking, or driving a car? Sometimes, very rarely, that could be what saves your life.
After all, are you strapping on a helmet while you're out walking, or driving a car? Sometimes, very rarely, that could be what saves your life.
> After all, are you strapping on a helmet while you're out walking, or driving a car?
you are much more likely to fall from a bicycle than while walking or getting in or out of a car. For people who are at risk from falling while walking, yes, precautions are taken that they not fall or hit their heads (or hips), it's quite dangerous.
I'm not advocating helmet use. But nor do I advocate for me to pay for patching you up if you don't.
you are much more likely to fall from a bicycle than while walking or getting in or out of a car. For people who are at risk from falling while walking, yes, precautions are taken that they not fall or hit their heads (or hips), it's quite dangerous.
I'm not advocating helmet use. But nor do I advocate for me to pay for patching you up if you don't.
Your argument is that the additional protection of a helmet is not worth the additional inconvenience for you when you are walking or driving.
That's the exact same argument the anti-helmet crowd is making of cycling.
In order for your argument to work, you have to either provide a quantitative basis for why your tradeoff totally is worth it and the other is not, or you have to come up with a qualitatively different argument.
That's the exact same argument the anti-helmet crowd is making of cycling.
In order for your argument to work, you have to either provide a quantitative basis for why your tradeoff totally is worth it and the other is not, or you have to come up with a qualitatively different argument.
I'm not making an argument, neither about helmets for pedestrians nor cyclists. I'm pointing out that others are not focusing on the right metrics to make their arguments, or are providing spurious commentary.
> the additional protection of a helmet is not worth the additional inconvenience
I actually pointed out that protection of a helmet for pedestrians is called for as standard practice (by others, not by me)
> the additional protection of a helmet is not worth the additional inconvenience
I actually pointed out that protection of a helmet for pedestrians is called for as standard practice (by others, not by me)
I don't know about you, but I can't walk at 15kph+, so the amount of crash energy my head would experience while walking is quite low.
The helmet protects you from other things moving at you, not just you moving at other things.
They may help but they aren't really designed for that.
Helmets are designed to limit head injuries when you bang your head on the ground mostly. If you get mauled by a truck or a suv it is unlikely to help much although it will still help if you bang and rebound on it.
Helmets are designed to limit head injuries when you bang your head on the ground mostly. If you get mauled by a truck or a suv it is unlikely to help much although it will still help if you bang and rebound on it.
15-20 km/h is a fairly common pace in running races (2:05 to 2:50 marathon pace), no helmets are worn there.
When you fall while running, you don't have a mechanical contraption limiting your movement. The nature of riding a bicycle (or motorcycle) makes it much more likely you'll hit your head. People also don't fall as much while running as they do when riding: it's easy to hit a crack in the pavement and lose control on a bike.
> People also don't fall as much while running as they do when riding
Says who?
Just a couple of days ago I had a runner get past me while I was walking on the street, 2 seconds later she hit a bump on the pavement with her foot and fell down hard (she even made a loud splash sound as she hit the ground). No, she didn't have a helmet. Should she have?
At the end of the day, people should be walking around in full steel plate armour, for protection and safety. Or even better, not walking around at all. Bicycles should be banned!
> it's easy to hit a crack in the pavement and lose control on a bike.
No, its not. The person who says this probably hadn't ridden a bicycle in their life, or if they have, not often and not recently.
Bicycle wheels are EXCELLENT at getting over cracks, bumps, ditches, holes, whatever - as long as the attack angle is as close to 90 degrees as possible. It is the riders responsibility to make sure that is the case. Wider tires also help, lower pressures too... and high speeds, counterintuitively.
Of course, if you are afraid of falling or uncertain of your skills on the bike, wear a helmet by all means. Just don't think that it is "normal" and all riders are like that.
Says who?
Just a couple of days ago I had a runner get past me while I was walking on the street, 2 seconds later she hit a bump on the pavement with her foot and fell down hard (she even made a loud splash sound as she hit the ground). No, she didn't have a helmet. Should she have?
At the end of the day, people should be walking around in full steel plate armour, for protection and safety. Or even better, not walking around at all. Bicycles should be banned!
> it's easy to hit a crack in the pavement and lose control on a bike.
No, its not. The person who says this probably hadn't ridden a bicycle in their life, or if they have, not often and not recently.
Bicycle wheels are EXCELLENT at getting over cracks, bumps, ditches, holes, whatever - as long as the attack angle is as close to 90 degrees as possible. It is the riders responsibility to make sure that is the case. Wider tires also help, lower pressures too... and high speeds, counterintuitively.
Of course, if you are afraid of falling or uncertain of your skills on the bike, wear a helmet by all means. Just don't think that it is "normal" and all riders are like that.
>2 seconds later she hit a bump on the pavement with her foot and fell down hard (she even made a loud splash sound as she hit the ground). No, she didn't have a helmet. Should she have?
Did she hit her head? Humans are hardwired by millions of years of evolution to protect themselves in falls using their arms and hands; they generally handle falls very well. Humans have not evolved to handle riding bikes, and using your hands to protect your head in falls isn't instinctive there like it is while running or walking.
>No, its not. The person who says this probably hadn't ridden a bicycle in their life, or if they have, not often and not recently.
This is just stupid and argumentative. Road surfaces are frequently bad and people make mistakes.
>Of course, if you are afraid of falling or uncertain of your skills on the bike, wear a helmet by all means.
Yes, because I'm sure you're such a perfect rider who never makes a mistake.
Did she hit her head? Humans are hardwired by millions of years of evolution to protect themselves in falls using their arms and hands; they generally handle falls very well. Humans have not evolved to handle riding bikes, and using your hands to protect your head in falls isn't instinctive there like it is while running or walking.
>No, its not. The person who says this probably hadn't ridden a bicycle in their life, or if they have, not often and not recently.
This is just stupid and argumentative. Road surfaces are frequently bad and people make mistakes.
>Of course, if you are afraid of falling or uncertain of your skills on the bike, wear a helmet by all means.
Yes, because I'm sure you're such a perfect rider who never makes a mistake.
I thought titan would keep good for a life time?
... yes, that's what they say about titanium, why I decided to pay the price, but turns out it's not true.
The metal, yes. What's at stake here seems to be the welding, which is the tricky part with titanium.
Did the manufacturer provide an explanation? A sheer (which that looks like) should be near impossible on any properly manufactured bicycle under normal usage.
No. I got a full refund, though. Most importantly, I'm so extremely happy I'm still alive, I don't care about anything else.
I wouldn’t view that as an indictment of a particular material.
That’s like first generation carbon failure and those went away 20 years ago. I’d blame the manufacturer specifically in that case because it’s both catastrophic & unexpected.
That’s like first generation carbon failure and those went away 20 years ago. I’d blame the manufacturer specifically in that case because it’s both catastrophic & unexpected.
Sudden memories of early http://www.bustedcarbon.com/
Woaa horror story, what a luck that you didn’t get hurt!
Anyway it’s weird because it doesn’t look broken on a weld, very rare situation, titanium should last forever.
Anyway it’s weird because it doesn’t look broken on a weld, very rare situation, titanium should last forever.
Yeah, I'm kind of flabbergasted to be honest, total failures like that are rare for metal tubing.
Oh, I wish. Unfortunately a nasty accident bent my steel tube beyond repair due to structural integrity concerns, and I still have yet to find a bike I've felt so at one with... This one was an early 80's Schwinn before the Chicago plant shut down and it's hard to find the exact kind I like.
Relevant Sheldon Brown article of course:
"they are welded, not brazed. [...] There are necked-down parts that fit into the top tube and down tube, like internal lugs."
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/chicago-schwinns.html
"they are welded, not brazed. [...] There are necked-down parts that fit into the top tube and down tube, like internal lugs."
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/chicago-schwinns.html
Oh man I had a bright metallic green Varsity as a kid. That was a great bike and I really regret getting rid of it, or rather abandoning it at my parent's house when I went off to college, and they got rid of it :(
traveler or le tour? i had a traveler from 1981, until around 1996 when it was stolen off a bike rack on campus despite being locked up.
Le tour. The traveler is a great bike too. That settles it, this year I'm going to set aside time to search deeply for a new le tour that speaks to me...
totally totally agree. they were great. my traveler was the same age as your le tour, worked great until stolen from a bike rack by the campus police in a noob mistake, and sold at auction, in 1996 or so, in a big ten campus. i later saw it, totally beat up, locked at the engineering library. (like i alluded to above)
i saved up and bought a titanium litespeed and it's fantastic (for me anyway). i think Lynskey is also great (they're the family that started litespeed, which they spun off to an american investor group, so basically bifurcated with two tennessee-made names for the same group of engineers.
i saved up and bought a titanium litespeed and it's fantastic (for me anyway). i think Lynskey is also great (they're the family that started litespeed, which they spun off to an american investor group, so basically bifurcated with two tennessee-made names for the same group of engineers.
There's nothing like those lugged Schwinn frames for building beaters. There was a period when some were built in Mississippi, and others in Japan. I've got a couple of those frames, and they're a great raw material.
They simply do not make them like they used to. Not after '83. Those frames were a real triumph of human engineering.
You can always get a lugged custom steel frame, especially in the US. It isn't going to be a bargain, but it will be specially taylored for your body. Otherwise there's Crust, All-City, Rivendell or other quality brands. Or Surly if you want the cheaper overbuilt stuff. See the links below for inspiration.
https://bluelug.com/bike-catalog https://www.lafraisecycles.com/bikes
https://bluelug.com/bike-catalog https://www.lafraisecycles.com/bikes
What would it take to make them again?
Would it just cost too much?
Would it just cost too much?
I think lack of demand, and a fragmenting of the component standards, are hurdles. Those old Schwinn (and other brand) frames were made during a time period when there was a lot of interchangeability, and most spare parts are still available. Today, standards for things like bottom brackets change every three years. There's no part on my 1985 frame, that I can't replace today, cheaply.
I can get a brand new lugged steel frame that would be perfect for my use -- a Surly Cross-Check. Seriously the only deterrent is a minor injury has forced me to re-think what my future needs are for geometry. I may need to adopt a more "comfort" posture. Better than not riding. Sucks to get old.
Despite my above comment, and thinking about it more, I want my next bike to be modern in the sense of accommodating fenders and much wider tires. I need horizontal dropouts and to be able to set the rear dropout spacing, to accommodate an internal gear hub (IGH).
I can get a brand new lugged steel frame that would be perfect for my use -- a Surly Cross-Check. Seriously the only deterrent is a minor injury has forced me to re-think what my future needs are for geometry. I may need to adopt a more "comfort" posture. Better than not riding. Sucks to get old.
Despite my above comment, and thinking about it more, I want my next bike to be modern in the sense of accommodating fenders and much wider tires. I need horizontal dropouts and to be able to set the rear dropout spacing, to accommodate an internal gear hub (IGH).
>Today, standards for things like bottom brackets change every three years.
Your comment is almost a decade out-of-date. Everyone these days has mostly converged on the same threaded BB standard for all but the highest-end bikes. Those press-fit BBs caused too many problems.
Your comment is almost a decade out-of-date. Everyone these days has mostly converged on the same threaded BB standard for all but the highest-end bikes. Those press-fit BBs caused too many problems.
> Seriously the only deterrent is a minor injury has forced me to re-think what my future needs are for geometry
A Cross Check with a flat or alt bar and 30 mm of spacers underneath? That or the Soma Doublecross without all the spacers. The main triangle and the fork are build from heat treated Tange Prestige tubes like some of the ATB frames of the '80s and '90s, unlike the Surlys which are built from utilitarian 4130 chromoly. Or the new Disc Trucker with extended head tube and the new Truck Stop riser drop bars. They shortened the chainstays and it no longer rides like barge unloaded, like the previous model.
https://somafab.blogspot.com/2020/10/soma-double-cross-signi...
A Cross Check with a flat or alt bar and 30 mm of spacers underneath? That or the Soma Doublecross without all the spacers. The main triangle and the fork are build from heat treated Tange Prestige tubes like some of the ATB frames of the '80s and '90s, unlike the Surlys which are built from utilitarian 4130 chromoly. Or the new Disc Trucker with extended head tube and the new Truck Stop riser drop bars. They shortened the chainstays and it no longer rides like barge unloaded, like the previous model.
https://somafab.blogspot.com/2020/10/soma-double-cross-signi...
That's purdy. I see what you mean about the geo.
I went through the same hurdles after an accident some ten years ago, built several bikes in the meantime including a classic road bike with somewhat similar geometry to the Cross Check, which I knew was not for me. Turns out that it's manageable, although I would probably not use it for a 100k trip. My current go everywhere bike is similar in geometry to the Double Cross, but it's aluminium.
I would encourage you to get in touch with a reputable custom frame builder and describe your situation and requirements. The local shop I use has been in business for nearly 50 years, and they use components that I can best describe as "tried and true." A bike they built for me in 2014 is something that I can still fully service myself with commonly-available parts and tools.
Meanwhile I damaged a thru-axle of a high-end big-name brand bike (rhymes with "wreck") I bought 2 years ago, and they told me that they no longer stock that part because it's "obsolete" (!)
Meanwhile I damaged a thru-axle of a high-end big-name brand bike (rhymes with "wreck") I bought 2 years ago, and they told me that they no longer stock that part because it's "obsolete" (!)
Buy the 1972 model I have.
Depending on how much sentimental value the bicycle has for you, how much you're willing to pay, and how long you're willing to wait, there are places that will repair your frame. One reason why steel touring/travel bikes are so popular is that you can often find workshops that can repair them when you're in some random city and in a bind. I got a nasty dent in my top tube on one of my ultralight chromoly steel bikes. While the dent didn't compromise the frame integrity because of its location, it marred an otherwise gorgeous bike. The shop that originally built the bike for me cut the tube out, welded in a new one, and repainted.
> Your steel fork is bent? Hit it with a hammer until it's true again!
I'm sorry, but this is BS. I don't think you can fix double/triple butted tubes easily, and even if you could, I wouldn't trust them any longer.
I once owned a steel-framed Italian road bike, made around 1985-1990. I bought it cheap because neither I nor the seller knew at the time that it was a real pedigree race bike, which meant lightweight tubes and probably quality steel (I don't know what it was made of, but the whole bike weighed in under 10kg with pedals, which for an older steel framed bike is excellent).
Then I crashed it, I went straight into a lamp post at around 20kmh. It was not a nice experience on myself, but the bike... the fork was bent backwards so that the front wheel went past the down tube. The top tube was bent, dented and bashed and cracked, almost unrecognizably. It was clear from the first moment that no-one will be riding that frame again...
...until a guy turned up to "buy" the frame & parts (I gave them away for free). Guess what, he just needed the lugs and he built a bamboo bike from them! That's how you recycle for good.
I'm sorry, but this is BS. I don't think you can fix double/triple butted tubes easily, and even if you could, I wouldn't trust them any longer.
I once owned a steel-framed Italian road bike, made around 1985-1990. I bought it cheap because neither I nor the seller knew at the time that it was a real pedigree race bike, which meant lightweight tubes and probably quality steel (I don't know what it was made of, but the whole bike weighed in under 10kg with pedals, which for an older steel framed bike is excellent).
Then I crashed it, I went straight into a lamp post at around 20kmh. It was not a nice experience on myself, but the bike... the fork was bent backwards so that the front wheel went past the down tube. The top tube was bent, dented and bashed and cracked, almost unrecognizably. It was clear from the first moment that no-one will be riding that frame again...
...until a guy turned up to "buy" the frame & parts (I gave them away for free). Guess what, he just needed the lugs and he built a bamboo bike from them! That's how you recycle for good.
Personnally I always felt that the steel is real mantra was just pure ignorance.
There are great bikes of very different materials.
I owned great bikes in steel, alu and carbon. My most comfortable and efficient road bike was made of carbon, the less comfortable made of crude 4130 steel tubing while some other steel bikes were really nice to ride but not as comfy as my current carbon bike. Reason is mostly because these bikes had that old school italian geometry with very short chainstays and couldn't accept tires bigger than 23mm.
I've seen steel bikes bent into unrepairability while I've seen carbon bikes shattered into several pieces then repaired and rebuild with very little difference in ride feeling after the repair for a tiny fraction of the cost a custom builder would ask to replace steel tubes on an existing high end steel frame.
There are great bikes of very different materials.
I owned great bikes in steel, alu and carbon. My most comfortable and efficient road bike was made of carbon, the less comfortable made of crude 4130 steel tubing while some other steel bikes were really nice to ride but not as comfy as my current carbon bike. Reason is mostly because these bikes had that old school italian geometry with very short chainstays and couldn't accept tires bigger than 23mm.
I've seen steel bikes bent into unrepairability while I've seen carbon bikes shattered into several pieces then repaired and rebuild with very little difference in ride feeling after the repair for a tiny fraction of the cost a custom builder would ask to replace steel tubes on an existing high end steel frame.
I managed to crack a steel frame mountain bike in the early 1990s - I did use it to commute (about 25km a day) and used it off road a lot. Simply got someone to weld up the crack, got the frame sprayed and it lasted another 5 years or until I could afford to buy something nicer.
Ironically a carbon frame is easier and cheaper to repair than a nice steel frame.
A hammer is all a good mechanic needs.
When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a bicycle.
Also applies to fixing steel wheels. Can slam them against the ground, hammer them, and step on them to bend them back into shape without losing as much strength as one would on aluminum.
Aside from being absurdly heavy, steel wheels are dangerous since they become extremely slippery to brake shoes in rain or wet conditions. I don't think steel rims are common any more - or at least they shouldn't be unless you use disk brakes or something.
I'm guessing this person might be referring to steel car/truck wheels? A lot of serious crawlers/off-roaders prefer steel wheels because 1. they are cheap and easy to fix/replace, 2. they are easy to weld on beadlocks, and 3. you can definitely repair them out on the trail with a hammer.
Not common in new builds, but because of their durability and repairability, they’re still around.
I came here to say the same thing - "steel is real" is totally true. I did have a Bianchi Pista Concept that was probably my favorite bike of all time, but a no-name steel fixed gear bike that I owned got way more miles and was far more comfortable. The carbon fork on the pista concept helped, but all-in-all it was a performance machine and not a comfortable one.
Anecdotally, and I know the cab material is not the only difference, my RAM 1500 is leaps and bounds more comfortable and pleasant to be in than my F-150. The RAM has a steel body, whereas the F-150 is very light/rigid aluminum. The steel cab does much better with absorbing the energy/sound from the road.
Anecdotally, and I know the cab material is not the only difference, my RAM 1500 is leaps and bounds more comfortable and pleasant to be in than my F-150. The RAM has a steel body, whereas the F-150 is very light/rigid aluminum. The steel cab does much better with absorbing the energy/sound from the road.
Yes, sir, and you had to wait 10 years for it! I've only had steel frames myself but when I try out non-steel frames I can't say I dislike them, just that they feel strange.
I'm still trying to understand the talk about over/understeer and how the bottom bracket is involved. Are you saying you put down more weight on the outside pedal on each rotation of the crank as you're going through a turn?
Also, isn't there some wasted energy going into flexing the frame that should go into the road?
I'm still trying to understand the talk about over/understeer and how the bottom bracket is involved. Are you saying you put down more weight on the outside pedal on each rotation of the crank as you're going through a turn?
Also, isn't there some wasted energy going into flexing the frame that should go into the road?
There is some wasted energy from flexing during really hard pedaling, but off-road this can actually make you more efficient when the frame keeps the rear wheel attached to uneven ground.
Have you ridden aluminium bikes in a way that lets you compare? I have a steel and an aluminum frame, but they have different applications so I can't compare. I do feel more harshness in the bars on the ALU frames, like sharper peaks in vibrations.
A good alu frame is more comfortable than a cheap steel or carbon frame IME. I think a lot of the perceived differences comes down to tyres rather than frame material - steel bikes are much more likely to have >35mm tyres than alu with 25 - 28mm.
And a really good steel frame (or titanium that has been butted to ride like steel) is even more enjoyable still, at least for a lot of folks. A hand built steel frame is luxurious and will ride like a dream.
> A hand built steel frame is luxurious and will ride like a dream.
Surely that depends on the hands.
Surely that depends on the hands.
I've tried the following:
• steel, straight-gauge Hi-Ten from the mid 90's
• steel, double-butted, Columbus SL from the late 70's/ early 80's
• steel, double-butted, Tange 1 from the late 80's
• steel, not sure but it was a Kona Rova from 2020 I believe
• aluminum, Cannondale R300 from the mid 90's
• aluminum, Specialized SmartWeld DSW from 2016
• aluminum, Cannondale Synapse from the late 2010's
I personally love Columbus SL. I believe it was 0.1 mm thicker all around than even the Tange 1 bike in numbers (but I'm not sure if both triangles were double-butted or only the main one). But it feels springier, even with the same wheels & tires & components swapped between the two frames.
I didn't mind the Cannondale Synapse. It subjectively felt better than the Smartweld aluminum, but the difference could have been in the wider tires on the Synapse (versus the Spesh).
The Kona Rove... for some reason was a bit of a letdown. People seem to love that bike, though.
And Hi-Ten is as stiff and clunky as everyone says. Pure beater material right there.
But the Cannondale R300's mid 90's aluminum was even harsher and wrist-numbing. It'll rattle you to your core!
All of this is anecdotal & subjective, though. I've learned to compensate the added road-noise from the Specialized aluminum by hovering off my saddle and bending my elbows a bit while loosening my grip.
But man, I love that racing steel bike. It makes me wanna try Tange Prestige of the road variety, and Ti as well.
Only other thing I'm super curious about is CAAD 12 Aluminum, but on forums I've read that CAAD 12's are slightly harsher than SuperSix Evo's (all carbon).
–––
Edited to include some other bikes & models
• steel, straight-gauge Hi-Ten from the mid 90's
• steel, double-butted, Columbus SL from the late 70's/ early 80's
• steel, double-butted, Tange 1 from the late 80's
• steel, not sure but it was a Kona Rova from 2020 I believe
• aluminum, Cannondale R300 from the mid 90's
• aluminum, Specialized SmartWeld DSW from 2016
• aluminum, Cannondale Synapse from the late 2010's
I personally love Columbus SL. I believe it was 0.1 mm thicker all around than even the Tange 1 bike in numbers (but I'm not sure if both triangles were double-butted or only the main one). But it feels springier, even with the same wheels & tires & components swapped between the two frames.
I didn't mind the Cannondale Synapse. It subjectively felt better than the Smartweld aluminum, but the difference could have been in the wider tires on the Synapse (versus the Spesh).
The Kona Rove... for some reason was a bit of a letdown. People seem to love that bike, though.
And Hi-Ten is as stiff and clunky as everyone says. Pure beater material right there.
But the Cannondale R300's mid 90's aluminum was even harsher and wrist-numbing. It'll rattle you to your core!
All of this is anecdotal & subjective, though. I've learned to compensate the added road-noise from the Specialized aluminum by hovering off my saddle and bending my elbows a bit while loosening my grip.
But man, I love that racing steel bike. It makes me wanna try Tange Prestige of the road variety, and Ti as well.
Only other thing I'm super curious about is CAAD 12 Aluminum, but on forums I've read that CAAD 12's are slightly harsher than SuperSix Evo's (all carbon).
–––
Edited to include some other bikes & models
I've ridden (mostly in the 60cm sizes):
- Steel Pogliaghi Track bike. 80's vintage, handbuilt. Thinwall standard diameter tubing. Probably the flexiest bike I've ridden, super easy to see BB and fork flex.
- Handbuilt steel road, mid-90s, Columbus OS tubing I think. Kenesis bonded AL fork. Pretty harsh. The carbon forks of the time were much smoother. When I get it from storage (where it's been for a decade), I'm going to put a custom steel fork on it and ride it on sunny days and smooth pavement.
- Handbuilt steel 26" road tandem. Late 90's. hand built steel unicrown fork. I _love_ this bike. It's running wide Rene Herse tires now. It is so planted on descents with bad pavement. My next single is going to try to replicate the feel of this bike in a single. (probably something like a Crust Lightning Bolt, if I can get one in the EU)
- An Al Redline Cross bike (kinesis unicrown alu fork, which was an out and out noodle), and later with a Surly crosscheck fork (harsh, heavy). Very comfy till I killed the fork. Sadly, there's a fatigue crack at the bottom bracket.
- An over stiff Al gravel bike (PlanetX Full Monty) w/ carbon fork, mildly redeemed by 650cx48 RH tires. It's so stiff that standing really isn't encouraged, the bike just feels dead.
- Inexpensive Carbon road bike (PlanetX pro carbon) with carbon fork. Nice enough for the 6k miles I used it, but I'm done with 25c tires and no space for fenders. It's no faster than the gravel bike, despite being 4 kilos lighter.
- Mid 90's Cannondale 3.0 frame. Stiff. I greatly preferred the Steel one that replaced it.
My experience would say -- The forks really matter. The lighter unicrown forks are so much better than the super stiff ones. Wide, supple tires matter too. They're a good 7+% faster on the tandem, and probably the only reason I like riding the AL Gravel bike.
- Steel Pogliaghi Track bike. 80's vintage, handbuilt. Thinwall standard diameter tubing. Probably the flexiest bike I've ridden, super easy to see BB and fork flex.
- Handbuilt steel road, mid-90s, Columbus OS tubing I think. Kenesis bonded AL fork. Pretty harsh. The carbon forks of the time were much smoother. When I get it from storage (where it's been for a decade), I'm going to put a custom steel fork on it and ride it on sunny days and smooth pavement.
- Handbuilt steel 26" road tandem. Late 90's. hand built steel unicrown fork. I _love_ this bike. It's running wide Rene Herse tires now. It is so planted on descents with bad pavement. My next single is going to try to replicate the feel of this bike in a single. (probably something like a Crust Lightning Bolt, if I can get one in the EU)
- An Al Redline Cross bike (kinesis unicrown alu fork, which was an out and out noodle), and later with a Surly crosscheck fork (harsh, heavy). Very comfy till I killed the fork. Sadly, there's a fatigue crack at the bottom bracket.
- An over stiff Al gravel bike (PlanetX Full Monty) w/ carbon fork, mildly redeemed by 650cx48 RH tires. It's so stiff that standing really isn't encouraged, the bike just feels dead.
- Inexpensive Carbon road bike (PlanetX pro carbon) with carbon fork. Nice enough for the 6k miles I used it, but I'm done with 25c tires and no space for fenders. It's no faster than the gravel bike, despite being 4 kilos lighter.
- Mid 90's Cannondale 3.0 frame. Stiff. I greatly preferred the Steel one that replaced it.
My experience would say -- The forks really matter. The lighter unicrown forks are so much better than the super stiff ones. Wide, supple tires matter too. They're a good 7+% faster on the tandem, and probably the only reason I like riding the AL Gravel bike.
Appreciate the info on the forks. Wish I paid more attention to them (and had more access to various ones).
All your testing & experimenting & getting to sample the goods sounds absolutely fun though.
All your testing & experimenting & getting to sample the goods sounds absolutely fun though.
I have two keep-for-life bicycles made from Reynolds 853 steel and both are exquisite. I'm not sure what the modern equivalent is. But I need to find out soon-ish. I need one more nice touring/gravel bike for my final two decades of riding.
That's great to hear. I kinda wanna get my hands on a LeMond Zurich (or better) in my size in that fabled 853 if it ever pops up. Got to test ride one super briefly and I immediately liked it.
> I need one more nice touring/gravel bike for my final two decades of riding.
Oh how we fool ourselves! Just one more I promise, wallet!
Oh how we fool ourselves! Just one more I promise, wallet!
>> But the Cannondale R300's mid 90's aluminum was even harsher and wrist-numbing. It'll rattle you to your core
My core still loves a polished weld! Made in the USA!
My core still loves a polished weld! Made in the USA!
I've seen some seasoned looking folks on Saeco's blowing by me and my buddies on our more modern goods. If that kinda nostalgia coupled with the lore of steel I'd be all over it.
From the Prodigiosa (part of Gios which still makes steel bikes following their philosophy from the 70s-80s bicycles) website[0]:
> - The true quality of a frame is felt in the descents - In a racing bicycle, half a degree in the construction of the frame is more important than half a kilo in its weight - 20 grams on the wheels are more important than 500 grams on the frame - The tubes of a frame are like the ingredients of a dish. All are important but the taste depends on the skill of the chef - A racing bicycle must be made to measure - The bicycle is the heritage of Italian Culture, and we must preserve it - A steel frame is like a gold coin. It keeps it's value as the years pass by - The frame is the heart of the bicycle, and the groupset merely the clothes it puts on
[0] http://www.prodigiosa.it/index.php/telaio
> - The true quality of a frame is felt in the descents - In a racing bicycle, half a degree in the construction of the frame is more important than half a kilo in its weight - 20 grams on the wheels are more important than 500 grams on the frame - The tubes of a frame are like the ingredients of a dish. All are important but the taste depends on the skill of the chef - A racing bicycle must be made to measure - The bicycle is the heritage of Italian Culture, and we must preserve it - A steel frame is like a gold coin. It keeps it's value as the years pass by - The frame is the heart of the bicycle, and the groupset merely the clothes it puts on
[0] http://www.prodigiosa.it/index.php/telaio
It's almost impossible (for any of us) to do an apples-to-apples comparison, because there are a huge number of non-frame-material variables: tires, wheels, bars, seatpost, fork, geometry, etc. etc. Some of these factors (e.g. tires) make a far greater difference than frame material. Even if you could isolate the frame material, different materials can be tuned in different ways for different purposes. I therefore don't think it's worth focusing much on the "feel" of different frame materials.
> Have you ridden aluminium bikes in a way that lets you compare?
I rode a boring old aluminum 6061 GT for a couple of years back in ~2010, and I now own a Cannondale CAAD12 aluminum alloy frame. I ended up putting it full-time on trainer duty. I thought it was stiff, and the overall "feeling" was crisp. If I were feeling uncharitable I might say it's harder to control. I hear the CAAD13 frames improve on ride quality.
I've found it very difficult to find a non-steel bike that offers the same ride characteristics that I've become accustomed to. And honestly at this point I don't have a lot of time and incentive to keep trying different things when I feel I've found something that just works really well for me.
I rode a boring old aluminum 6061 GT for a couple of years back in ~2010, and I now own a Cannondale CAAD12 aluminum alloy frame. I ended up putting it full-time on trainer duty. I thought it was stiff, and the overall "feeling" was crisp. If I were feeling uncharitable I might say it's harder to control. I hear the CAAD13 frames improve on ride quality.
I've found it very difficult to find a non-steel bike that offers the same ride characteristics that I've become accustomed to. And honestly at this point I don't have a lot of time and incentive to keep trying different things when I feel I've found something that just works really well for me.
When I was working in a shop I had the opportunity to ride a lot of different bikes. Generally steel felt less harsh which allows for longer rides and tracked significantly better. Although this was a couple decades ago.
There's more nuance to that. A 4130 steel frame with oversize top and seat tubes and thicker walls (0.9/0.7/0.9 mm) typically used on touring bikes is also going to be stiff. A too thin down tube will make the bottom bracket flex too much.
This is a quality modern steel tube set:
https://ciclicorsa.com/shop/columbus-spirit-tube-set/
A frame will retail to at least 4x times as much.
https://ciclicorsa.com/shop/cinelli-nemo-tig-disc-frameset/
This is a quality modern steel tube set:
https://ciclicorsa.com/shop/columbus-spirit-tube-set/
A frame will retail to at least 4x times as much.
https://ciclicorsa.com/shop/cinelli-nemo-tig-disc-frameset/
I'll say it also depends on the fabrication method.
I have an Allez Sprint from a few years ago - it's aluminum alloy with carbon forks+seat, but the joints are welded a few inches away from the joints instead of right at the joint. The result is a stronger bike and an extremely responsive ride that I enjoy for rides <50m miles. You'll feel everything in the pavement, which is both a good and bad thing depending on your preferences.
For longer rides it's hard to beat my old-school fully lugged steel frame on flat routes, but the added weight usually isn't worth the tradeoff for me.
I have an Allez Sprint from a few years ago - it's aluminum alloy with carbon forks+seat, but the joints are welded a few inches away from the joints instead of right at the joint. The result is a stronger bike and an extremely responsive ride that I enjoy for rides <50m miles. You'll feel everything in the pavement, which is both a good and bad thing depending on your preferences.
For longer rides it's hard to beat my old-school fully lugged steel frame on flat routes, but the added weight usually isn't worth the tradeoff for me.
what matters more than anything is frame geometry, this has much more influence on how a bike feels than frame material
older aluminum frames have a reputation for feeling harsh, but it's not because they're made out of aluminum
older aluminum frames have a reputation for feeling harsh, but it's not because they're made out of aluminum
In a way, it was, because they could go super large tubes without the weight penalty. Kleins and the Cannondale 3.0 and 2.8 were the first to really crank the dial on stiffness, when a lot of the other bikes were running normal or +1 oversized tubes.
They were super harsh because they were aiming for stiffness, and the material allowed them to do that.
They were super harsh because they were aiming for stiffness, and the material allowed them to do that.
Yes but are dispersing power. It’s the same (endless) story as the vinyl VS digital… you can “feel” better the vinyl but the digital is technically better.
I tend to agree - unless you had the ability to compare the ride of identical frames made of different materials - same angles, same components and tires, I suspect a lot of the 'feel' of the ride comes from having been told steel is more forgiving, aluminum is harsh, etc. We have a lot of very subtle control over the frame, angles, wall thicknesses, and I would expect a skilled builder to be able to produce the desired performance for whatever frame material. That said, there do seem to be some obvious poor choices, I am not going touring on an all-carbon frame that could fail catastrophically in the middle of nowhere, no matter how comfy.
Depends on your goals though I think. Since ride quality and feel is a factor, it's not objectively true that carbon is better than steel. Just that it has better stiffness. Do you want better stiffness? Well it depends entirely on what you are doing and what you want to experience.
For example, in a touring bike, you might prefer steels robustness and softer feel for long hauls. Some people might prefer carbon for it's lightness. It's all down to choice, neither is objectively better.
For example, in a touring bike, you might prefer steels robustness and softer feel for long hauls. Some people might prefer carbon for it's lightness. It's all down to choice, neither is objectively better.
Yeah absolutely correct but the article was talking about professional cycling. I’m also a cyclist (not touring oriented) and the stuff a bike is, the more I like it.
A racing bike should flex vertically but not horizontally.
A racing bike should flex vertically but not horizontally.
Where is the power dispersed? Typically bike frames are made of elastic materials which return the power that was injected through the deformation. If the power isn't returned, then the deformation was plastic and you have a bent frame, so that isn't really an option.
Yes but it returns the power when your pedal is at the “death point” and you aren’t making power on the frame, then the power is dispersed through the frame flex when not needed. The frame should be soft vertically on the seat tube.
I'm not sure if I see it. If you're not putting a force on the frame, then the frame is not twisted, and it doesn't return anything. You have to push in order to recuperate the energy.
If you remove the force so fast that the frame doesn't have the time to return the energy back to you, then it will disperse the energy by ringing. But i don't think it's realistic unless you drive your pedals with hammer strikes.
If you remove the force so fast that the frame doesn't have the time to return the energy back to you, then it will disperse the energy by ringing. But i don't think it's realistic unless you drive your pedals with hammer strikes.
You also have the possibility of transferring that energy into tire deformation and heating.
I would think that most of the energy goes in between 12 and 3 o'clock and then flexes out from 3 to 6. So if the flex pushes back against your leg a good part of the energy should go back on the road.
If I ever get into recreational cycling I need to make a mental note to not read about any performance stuff ever again. I'll get something rigid with relatively wide tires and disk brakes and not give two shits about weight or stiffness. I'm not nor have I ever been someone looking to shave seconds off in a race, I'm just some naturally unfit guy that happens to love riding bikes.
Also need to stop talking to other cyclists online. "Oh yeah 100 miles is easy", not for me it isn't.
Also need to stop talking to other cyclists online. "Oh yeah 100 miles is easy", not for me it isn't.
A good amount of “legacy” bike advocates are actively hostile to e-bikes, equating them to “cheating”. It’s gatekeeping bullshit.
Anytime someone asks me bike buying advice, my only reply is “go to your local dealer and talk with them”. That relationship and taking a few test rides are far more important than any spec on a sheet.
Anytime someone asks me bike buying advice, my only reply is “go to your local dealer and talk with them”. That relationship and taking a few test rides are far more important than any spec on a sheet.
E-bikes are great for bike advocacy - what I’ve noticed is that a lot more people are biking because of them. I bump into lots more older people riding canyon roads than I used to, and people going grocery shopping or out to the pub on e-bikes. Friends who have been indoor people and not fit are buying e-bikes and getting out. This has nothing but positive effects on local traffic laws and bike lanes, and local trails and bike paths. I don’t have an e-bike yet, but I will get one eventually, maybe when my interest in climbing wanes, or maybe sooner just to increase my range.
My over middle aged colleague got into and enjoying cycling again with an e bike.
And he gives no dammn if this is cheeting according to some condescending self righteous hole of excretion. Did not even hear about those poor people. He just likes to move more and that's it.
And he gives no dammn if this is cheeting according to some condescending self righteous hole of excretion. Did not even hear about those poor people. He just likes to move more and that's it.
... and if the first shop you visit isn't vibing with what your goals and/or personality are, try another.
Shops that cater to commuters and transportation cyclists are very different from ones that cater to hardcore road or mountain bike riders.
Shops that cater to commuters and transportation cyclists are very different from ones that cater to hardcore road or mountain bike riders.
The thing about bikes is that if you want to go fast, you have to put in kilometers on the saddle. That trains not just your body, but also your mind, and teaches you how to behave on the road. An electric bike allows someone with little training to go much faster than they would be able to otherwise. Now imagine that you're an experienced rider going at a cool 35 km/h and as you're about to pass a newbie on an electric bike they swerve into you because they don't yet have the habit of looking back before moving sideways. Yes, it's a mistake of that particular person alone, but it's a mistake they were able to make because e-bikes exist.
Wait til you find out who's driving the cars on the road
Cars at least are less able to swerve unpredictably, and drivers have to complete training in order to be allowed on the road.
...and yet car-on-car accidents are still a major source of premature deaths, to mention nothing of when the cyclist is the victim. The potential to do great harm has to be the overwhelming factor when assessing road risk.
The standard they once met (which might have been 70 years ago) is not that good a measure of people’s driving skill today.
There are civil, if not criminal, penalties for suddenly swerving into another car without justification.
> There are civil, if not criminal, penalties for...
Not really, or not enough at least. Drivers can and do cause horrific accidents because of inattention, bad judgement, intoxication, and road rage. There aren't enough penalties and, it seems, the situation has been getting worse and more chaotic lately, at least where I live in the Northeastern US.
Not really, or not enough at least. Drivers can and do cause horrific accidents because of inattention, bad judgement, intoxication, and road rage. There aren't enough penalties and, it seems, the situation has been getting worse and more chaotic lately, at least where I live in the Northeastern US.
Justification is easy in the USA
This is a short list of a few common get out of jail free cards for traffic violence:
1. I couldn't see them
2. The sun was in my eyes
3. I had a medical emergency
4. The car was in my blind spot
5. They came out of nowhere
6. My car lost control
7. My brakes didn't work
This is a short list of a few common get out of jail free cards for traffic violence:
1. I couldn't see them
2. The sun was in my eyes
3. I had a medical emergency
4. The car was in my blind spot
5. They came out of nowhere
6. My car lost control
7. My brakes didn't work
We're not living in a utopis. Drivers can do whatever they can get away with. If the other party has a dashcam, then they maybe boned if the police can be motivated to do their job for once without murdering someone.
[deleted]
Pretty sure almost anyone can go faster downhill on an analog bike than the 25kph that Ebike pedal assistance is limited to
Children master bike riding in a few days. Let’s not overcomplicate things.
Oh, they master it, do they? So, you'd let a child who's been riding a bike for a week or so ride with heavy traffic, right? They've mastered it, so there's nothing else for them to learn.
There's a huge difference between being able to handle a bike at 5 mph, 15 mph, and 28 mph.
20 year old me who just ate pavement because they didn’t know how to safely navigate street car rails would disagree.
You should have watched this video: https://youtu.be/sEON08d76oE?t=112 it nicely explains the importance of things like tram rails, and keeping a potato in your pants.
That was 40 year old me a couple years ago. Street car rails are terrible, bad for bikes and pedestrians, a lot of expense, and doesn't provide much more than a bus.
Dumbest comment I've read in a while here. Most Americans can't seem to "master" bike riding and so they all need to wear helmets. The Dutch don't and aren't the world capital of TBIs.
Dumbest comment I've read in a while here. (high five, it works both ways).
The Dutch have a bicycle culture and bicycle friendly streets where cars are outnumbered and don't despise cyclists in the manner of Sydney, Australia or Mean City, USA.
The Dutch also live in a flat country and don't extreme cycle down the side of Big Sur, etc either.
The Dutch have a bicycle culture and bicycle friendly streets where cars are outnumbered and don't despise cyclists in the manner of Sydney, Australia or Mean City, USA.
The Dutch also live in a flat country and don't extreme cycle down the side of Big Sur, etc either.
Learning to ride a bike and learning to ride one on public roads with traffic are two different skills.
As a (former) regular bike commuter, it was hilarious how some "serious" cyclists would say things like that, and then talk about the best ways to stay fit over the winter because obviously you're not gonna ride your bike when it's -5F out, right? Rather undermined my perception of how hardcore they were.
Similarly entertaining, leaving work one day when a dude in Lycra on a $3000 racing bike blew past me with hardly a glance. ...And then looked completely flabbergasted when I caught up with him and said "Hi!" at a stoplight a few miles down the road, riding my mountain bike and still wearing slacks and a button-down from work. Like, I may be a fatass, but I've been doing this every day for 15 years and my calves are solid rock.
Similarly entertaining, leaving work one day when a dude in Lycra on a $3000 racing bike blew past me with hardly a glance. ...And then looked completely flabbergasted when I caught up with him and said "Hi!" at a stoplight a few miles down the road, riding my mountain bike and still wearing slacks and a button-down from work. Like, I may be a fatass, but I've been doing this every day for 15 years and my calves are solid rock.
Yes I saw the same thing countless times in London, lycra heroes on expensive bikes whizzing past me on the flat then I'd overtake them again on the way up the next hill! Happened particularly often in January after everyone had got their posh new bikes.
I must get back into it.
I must get back into it.
"Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride." - Eddy Merckx
I was a very casual and just enjoyed riding until I started getting into touring. You're right not to care, at all. Unless you are a professional or are riding competitively at high levels, you will always do better by losing a little bit of belly, focusing on technique, and having more miles on the road. Weight will not be the difference maker.
I would come back from a tour on my steel Surly and just whip by people with 7k+ bikes in Central Park on a regular basis. It was the miles and nothing else.
Rolling resistance and comfort matter. I never went less than 23mm and I wouldn't even do that today, I'd go far wider 28mm or 35mm. Being comfortable keeps you on your bike longer and the longer you're on your bike, the more fit you'll be and happy - since you're riding a bike for longer.
Your instincts are good, have fun.
I was a very casual and just enjoyed riding until I started getting into touring. You're right not to care, at all. Unless you are a professional or are riding competitively at high levels, you will always do better by losing a little bit of belly, focusing on technique, and having more miles on the road. Weight will not be the difference maker.
I would come back from a tour on my steel Surly and just whip by people with 7k+ bikes in Central Park on a regular basis. It was the miles and nothing else.
Rolling resistance and comfort matter. I never went less than 23mm and I wouldn't even do that today, I'd go far wider 28mm or 35mm. Being comfortable keeps you on your bike longer and the longer you're on your bike, the more fit you'll be and happy - since you're riding a bike for longer.
Your instincts are good, have fun.
I bought two electric mountain bikes.
You don't care about "weight in grams" for each part.
You can get good exercise by lowering the assist level. You can raise the assist level for tricky parts or to get back to the car.
But the best part is getting TWO electric bikes - it lets you take someone with you, optimize for fun and minimize things like different ability or fitness levels.
You don't care about "weight in grams" for each part.
You can get good exercise by lowering the assist level. You can raise the assist level for tricky parts or to get back to the car.
But the best part is getting TWO electric bikes - it lets you take someone with you, optimize for fun and minimize things like different ability or fitness levels.
Buying two bikes to have a spare for a friend doesn't really work, unless all your friends are close to your height. If you're tall, you can't ride really short-frame bikes, and your short friends can't ride yours. Bikes aren't one-size-fits all. And depending on the bike, there's only so much adjustability.
I bought one sized for male, one sized for female. And mountain bikes have a lot more leeway in sizing than road bikes. also, dropper seat helps.
What? Did you forget that people know who their friends are, and can guess at who would be accommodated by a second bike?
Ok, so you have one short friend and one tall friend. Now you're going to buy 3 bikes so you can have everyone covered? What happens when you get a new friend that doesn't fit your existing bikes?
Then, in that specific instance, I might hesitate to buy a spare vs purchasing a gift for a friend.
Trying to legislate simple statements as if they needed to be universal law, and judging them as failures because you failed to find a a way to do that, does not make the simple statement bad.
Trying to legislate simple statements as if they needed to be universal law, and judging them as failures because you failed to find a a way to do that, does not make the simple statement bad.
In this case, it does, because people vary wildly in heights and bikes aren't easily adjustable to wildly differing heights. The statement was given as advice, and it's bad advice. There are certain types of bikes engineered to be highly adjustable (think bike-share bikes) for different rider sizes, but these aren't the norm for privately-owned bikes.
eMTBs are thousands of dollars a piece. The idea of buying an extra just for friends to ride as general advice is very silly, even ignoring the problems with differing sizes. It's terrible general advice. In the specific situation where you have a lot of disposable income and a very specific friend in mind, sure, sounds fun.
By all means, avoid the gear rathole. But you should go deep enough to find a bike that feels good to ride and fits your body.
I tried to be a hardtail purist, and quit mountain biking because it just sucked. (Local terrain is all huge rocks and drops) Years later tried a full suspension carbon- whoa, mountain biking can be type I fun??
I tried to be a commuter purist, favoring simplicity, durability, and reliability. Riding my hybrid is un-gratifying and soul-sucking. Tried a racy road bike, awkward as hell. Tried a nice gravel bike, oh my god I don't want to stop pedaling!
It's worth spending a little more to get the bike that feels good for you to ride.
I tried to be a hardtail purist, and quit mountain biking because it just sucked. (Local terrain is all huge rocks and drops) Years later tried a full suspension carbon- whoa, mountain biking can be type I fun??
I tried to be a commuter purist, favoring simplicity, durability, and reliability. Riding my hybrid is un-gratifying and soul-sucking. Tried a racy road bike, awkward as hell. Tried a nice gravel bike, oh my god I don't want to stop pedaling!
It's worth spending a little more to get the bike that feels good for you to ride.
You can read all the articles you want, but eventually you'll have to take the bike for a test ride, and you'll realize that you have no idea how anything you read translates to how the bike feels to you. You don't have the context to interpret all that information until your physical abilities and skills have outgrown a bicycle at least once. Get what fits your budget, your body, and the type of riding you'll do.
Distance is a funny thing. I've done multi-day hundreds of mile charity rides for fun. I've trained and helped train people who would not think of doing such to do so. I've also done 20+ mile mountain bike rides on a single speed mountain bike. These days, I like to just get out and explore with no time or distance goals. Some of it is for exercise, some of it is for clearing my mind and having fun.
My recommendation for those getting into it, decide the type of riding you wnat to do, figure out a budget and try bikes (new and used) in that budget for the one you like.
For what it's worth, my main bike is a steel "gravel bike" with fairly beefy tires, disk breaks and no suspension. I take it most places I have taken my full suspension mountain bike when riding in the bay area.
My recommendation for those getting into it, decide the type of riding you wnat to do, figure out a budget and try bikes (new and used) in that budget for the one you like.
For what it's worth, my main bike is a steel "gravel bike" with fairly beefy tires, disk breaks and no suspension. I take it most places I have taken my full suspension mountain bike when riding in the bay area.
I ride daily, to commute and workout and just for joy on a Sunday. In a city.
I've never considered anything but a steel frame (most common), in the realm of $1000 or less fully built.
Sure, I desire more. But we're talking about 10% satisfaction improvement for my (our) needs. And I definitely will splurge on a new bike soon, but only because I have money to burn.
I am contemplating a $3-500ish fitting with all the latest tech and a trained expert. That feels honestly worth it for anyone because it will likely save you injury.
I've never considered anything but a steel frame (most common), in the realm of $1000 or less fully built.
Sure, I desire more. But we're talking about 10% satisfaction improvement for my (our) needs. And I definitely will splurge on a new bike soon, but only because I have money to burn.
I am contemplating a $3-500ish fitting with all the latest tech and a trained expert. That feels honestly worth it for anyone because it will likely save you injury.
The funny thing is you can go really expensive with steel as well. If you're at the $1000 price point you're probably not using really good brakes or wheels; both can vastly improve your ride and enjoyment.
I agree. There's always more to pay. But I've never thought to myself "geez my brakes aren't enough". Disc brakes are too powerful IMO, and thus dangerous. And honestly I don't even know what difference wheels would make? Mine are circular, stay true. Why do folks pay thousands on hand built wheels?
Gears/derailleurs I have a tough time with.. even nice ones seem to need constant adjustment so I ride a single speed now and feel like I discovered a bike secret.
I'd spend on fit, frame, seat, tires as a min bar to be picky about.
Gears/derailleurs I have a tough time with.. even nice ones seem to need constant adjustment so I ride a single speed now and feel like I discovered a bike secret.
I'd spend on fit, frame, seat, tires as a min bar to be picky about.
> Disc brakes are too powerful IMO, and thus dangerous.
Not true at all. People learn to modulate instinctively in a matter of seconds when switching from different bikes/brake systems.
Besides deoending on pad compound and rim material many v-brakes are very brutal with a low curve between doing nothing and grabbing hard compared to cantilevers and road calipers, so it not only about disc vs rim brake systems.
Not true at all. People learn to modulate instinctively in a matter of seconds when switching from different bikes/brake systems.
Besides deoending on pad compound and rim material many v-brakes are very brutal with a low curve between doing nothing and grabbing hard compared to cantilevers and road calipers, so it not only about disc vs rim brake systems.
If your budget is $1000, you could find something really nice on the used market.
As another commenter said, bike fit is very important, especially to mitigate overuse injuries (don't be like me!). Beyond that I have found my $400 mish-mash of mid-2000s mid-range road parts attached to a $90 aluminum Nashbar frame to be sufficient for my road cycling needs.
A jump from, say, 23mm wide to 28mm on a standard road bike won't affect comfort much. Spend the money on getting the bike fit (or a beach cruiser).
Try to get a bike fit first. Ideally after some basic stretchwork / few classes of mobility training just to get the feel of what Your body is capable of in the short term.
It sounds like waste of money for something people feel like they should be able to judge themselves, but bikes aren't shoes. The issues often develop only after some hours of effort. If You're a beginner, chances are the flexibility of Your back / hips / joints will be the most limiting factor.
It sounds like waste of money for something people feel like they should be able to judge themselves, but bikes aren't shoes. The issues often develop only after some hours of effort. If You're a beginner, chances are the flexibility of Your back / hips / joints will be the most limiting factor.
Buying a racing bike, which a lot of people do, is as silly as buying GS racing skis, which hardly anyone does for recreational skiing because it's a Bad Idea. You won't like it unless you are as fit as a racer. Even then you won't find either the bike or skis pleasant for any purpose other than training to race.
Elite athletes are a different species from you and me.
Elite athletes are a different species from you and me.
That's absolutely not true. Commuting on a nice road bike is awesome. There's a trade off curve in regards to weight so it's really not necessary to spend 5 digits for the casual rider of course.
> That's absolutely not true. Commuting on a nice road bike is awesome.
OP said racing bike not road bike. I agree commuting on a nice road bike is awesome and the comfort/endurace category of road bikes is great for that (e.g. Specialized Roubaix, Trek Domane, etc.)
I wouldn't want to commute on an all-out race bike though. Too stiff, too uncomfortable geometry.
OP said racing bike not road bike. I agree commuting on a nice road bike is awesome and the comfort/endurace category of road bikes is great for that (e.g. Specialized Roubaix, Trek Domane, etc.)
I wouldn't want to commute on an all-out race bike though. Too stiff, too uncomfortable geometry.
It depends on the road, of ones flexibility more than the actual power level.
I used to ride as an elite racer 20y ago, I don't ride much these days, only twice a week and mostly shorts sub 3h, rides. My power is not higher than the average dude on the bike riding several times a week. Yet I am still comfy on a racing bike because I didn't lost that flexibility. I actually feel worse when my handlebar is too high and I can't stretch my back horizontally. I uusally don't fit well on what they call endurance bikes.
I used to ride as an elite racer 20y ago, I don't ride much these days, only twice a week and mostly shorts sub 3h, rides. My power is not higher than the average dude on the bike riding several times a week. Yet I am still comfy on a racing bike because I didn't lost that flexibility. I actually feel worse when my handlebar is too high and I can't stretch my back horizontally. I uusally don't fit well on what they call endurance bikes.
There are road bikes for fitness rides and touring, and there are racing geometry road bikes. Most people are better off with an endurance geometry road bike or a gravel bike.
My point is that more people buy racing equipment for cycling than do skiers for skiing. It is more obvious that a straight sidecut on a long stiff ski won't be fun, than it is that a low stack height and high seat will hurt your neck. You'll see a loot of kludges to fix these decisions: adjustable stems, steering tube extenders, etc.
My point is that more people buy racing equipment for cycling than do skiers for skiing. It is more obvious that a straight sidecut on a long stiff ski won't be fun, than it is that a low stack height and high seat will hurt your neck. You'll see a loot of kludges to fix these decisions: adjustable stems, steering tube extenders, etc.
It’s awesome if you work at a place small enough that you can take it next to your desk or if they have security-manned bike room
Nah. It's not about how fit you are, it's about what type of riding you enjoy. A road bike lets you go faster, but also makes you push yourself more that you otherwise would, because of the geometry and posture. If you prefer to have relaxing rides you're not going to enjoy road bikes, because they're just not built to facilitate them.
Disagree here. Just dont take your gs skies to west coast resorts ;) On east coast and in europe they work just fine.
Make sure you never ride a friends carbon bike then. The experience is really nice imho, independent of the weight.
Mass matters for the simple reason that if you need to climb a hill, the energy required to lift a mass is proportional to the mass. Granted, barring extremely heavy bikes, ~3/4 of the mass is the rider.
The human is more like >80% of the mass of the entire system, not ~75%.
Not sure why this is downvoted. A normal bike shouldn’t weigh more than 15 kg (some weigh just half of that), so a human at 75% would only weigh 45 kg at most. Maybe people are thinking of e-bikes, which are a lot heavier.
My steel touring/commuter bike (not an e-bike) easily weighs more than that, at least if I count the lock and repair kit I keep attached to the frame.
Fair enough, but for a human, let's say weighing 70 kg, to be 75% of the total weight, the bike plus whatever is attached to it would have to be above 23 kg. You only reach such a ratio with extra luggage.
Just how much extra equipment are you carrying? I would expect a bike like that unloaded to be around 12 kg.
Also you reclaim the energy on the downhill. Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think. (Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.)
The one thing where I suspect mass might matter is in the wheels. It's a huge difference between getting a heavy wheel spinning and a light one, and at least for commuting/recreational usage, most of that will be bled off as heat anyway.
The one thing where I suspect mass might matter is in the wheels. It's a huge difference between getting a heavy wheel spinning and a light one, and at least for commuting/recreational usage, most of that will be bled off as heat anyway.
> Also you reclaim the energy on the downhill.
Not really. Bikes don't have a battery to store reclaimed energy, if that would even be a thing. Maybe you go a bit faster on the downhill; I wouldn't call that reclaiming energy.
> Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think.
On a flat road at a constant speed, mass doesn't matter (except for the slightly increased rolling resistance). With speed changes (in situations with sharp corners for example, or if you want to accelerate fast to escape from the bunch or to catch someone else) or in hilly/mountainous areas, mass does matter.
For recreational use, spending lots of money for shaving of a few grams here and there is not worth the effort, that's true. But a few kilograms more or less do make a difference.
> Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.
Modern top-of-the-line road bikes for climbing are already as light as allowed by the UCI. It makes no sense to drill holes in such a bike: you wouldn't be allowed to use it in a race.
Not really. Bikes don't have a battery to store reclaimed energy, if that would even be a thing. Maybe you go a bit faster on the downhill; I wouldn't call that reclaiming energy.
> Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think.
On a flat road at a constant speed, mass doesn't matter (except for the slightly increased rolling resistance). With speed changes (in situations with sharp corners for example, or if you want to accelerate fast to escape from the bunch or to catch someone else) or in hilly/mountainous areas, mass does matter.
For recreational use, spending lots of money for shaving of a few grams here and there is not worth the effort, that's true. But a few kilograms more or less do make a difference.
> Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.
Modern top-of-the-line road bikes for climbing are already as light as allowed by the UCI. It makes no sense to drill holes in such a bike: you wouldn't be allowed to use it in a race.
The flaw in that reasoning is that it assumes that the only conceivable use for a lightweight bike is to compete in a UCI-sanctioned event.
An unstated assumption in my comment was that situations where light weight is most desirable are always UCI-sanctioned events. I admit that that view is probably too narrow.
Kinetic energy is still energy, you store it going up hill and reclaim it going down.
What you store going uphill is potential energy, not kinetic energy.
Unless there is a stop sign, traffic signal, or sharp curve at the bottom before you've gotten to spend all that energy you worked so hard to build up. It's just not a guarantee that you can go full tilt down the gigantic hill you just climbed.
That isn’t how physics works - you have to spend energy to counteract that kinetic energy you’ve ineluctably released by going downhill.
This sort of edge case maximalism feels useless and needlessly contrarian - it seems as though if I were to claim you can pay for things by credit card, you’d claim “that doesn’t work what if the power is out”.
This sort of edge case maximalism feels useless and needlessly contrarian - it seems as though if I were to claim you can pay for things by credit card, you’d claim “that doesn’t work what if the power is out”.
What are you on about? I do hilly rides all the time and personally feel the pain of not being able to reap the benefits of the climb _all the time_. Let's say I climb a big hill and there's a red light at the bottom of the other side. Guess where all my precious kinetic energy goes? It dissipates as sound and heat into my brake pads. Whoops! I ride about 60 miles a week on very hilly terrain. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 very large hills that end in a stop sign at the bottom in the first 20 minutes of my regular ride! I actually can't think of a single hill where I'm totally free and clear going down the other side.
In my experience, hilly rides are just harder and I'm more tired after them. It's actually very surprising that what I would expect to be a common sense viewpoint is being considered the contrarian one! Sure, apply elementary physics and hills are meaningless, but apply real-world physics and maybe they aren't so meaningless. And we aren't even considering the differences in energy efficiency when your body has to work harder, or the major differences in energy loss through air drag at high speeds. There are also concerns about how comfortably and efficiently you are able to convert muscle energy into motion through pedaling (similar to how speed-walking gaits are very inefficient) at both the high (downhill) and low ends (uphill) of pedal RPM.
In my experience, hilly rides are just harder and I'm more tired after them. It's actually very surprising that what I would expect to be a common sense viewpoint is being considered the contrarian one! Sure, apply elementary physics and hills are meaningless, but apply real-world physics and maybe they aren't so meaningless. And we aren't even considering the differences in energy efficiency when your body has to work harder, or the major differences in energy loss through air drag at high speeds. There are also concerns about how comfortably and efficiently you are able to convert muscle energy into motion through pedaling (similar to how speed-walking gaits are very inefficient) at both the high (downhill) and low ends (uphill) of pedal RPM.
> I actually can't think of a single hill where I'm totally free and clear going down the other side.
The big hills I can think of near me all have either stop signs at the bottom, or another hill to climb.
The big hills I can think of near me all have either stop signs at the bottom, or another hill to climb.
At least when it's another hill all that energy goes to good use!
Modern bikes don’t go below a certain weight because of the UCI minimum. If you look at non-UCI hill climb events you’ll see some crazy stuff.
This. When I used to ride (80s and 90s), a lot of people would try to shave weight and you saw some crazy stuff to get the bike down to 13-15 pounds. Bikes would be dangerously fragile because people would drill stuff and make wheels with fewer and fewer spokes. 17-19 lbs was really where the balance was between safe and light... and having equipment fail cost you a race really sucked... and people were getting hurt.
> Also you reclaim the energy on the downhill.
What does this mean? A downhill gives your legs a rest if you coast but it's not going to restore all the energy you burned going up the hill. And if you're riding sportily (not even a race necessarily), you'll still be pedaling the same amount of watts downhill. You'll just be going faster for the same amount of muscle power.
> Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think. (Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.)
Modern bikes are getting lighter and lighter.
> The one thing where I suspect mass might matter is in the wheels.
Yes, in terms of ROI by unit weight, lighter wheels are the best place to start.
What does this mean? A downhill gives your legs a rest if you coast but it's not going to restore all the energy you burned going up the hill. And if you're riding sportily (not even a race necessarily), you'll still be pedaling the same amount of watts downhill. You'll just be going faster for the same amount of muscle power.
> Mass doesn't matter as much as people used to think. (Hence no modern bikes being made out of drillium.)
Modern bikes are getting lighter and lighter.
> The one thing where I suspect mass might matter is in the wheels.
Yes, in terms of ROI by unit weight, lighter wheels are the best place to start.
> Modern bikes are getting lighter and lighter.
The trend over the last few years have been disk brakes, aerodynamic features and wider tires, all of which come with a weight penalty. Some brands are now starting to converge their aero and lightweight offerings, though.
The trend over the last few years have been disk brakes, aerodynamic features and wider tires, all of which come with a weight penalty. Some brands are now starting to converge their aero and lightweight offerings, though.
TIL: drillium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightening_holes
You reclaim it downhill if you book it. Casual riders seem to brake after reaching a certain speed, so they will send that energy to heat the brakes. Plus, the unfun of getting up the hill is probably more important than the fun going down, as it takes longer :)
Unless you have a stop sign, traffic signal, or sharp curve at the bottom.
On the other hand, a heavy wheel will also hold more angular momentum and so will better resist drag, at the cost of more difficult acceleration, braking, and stiffer but more stable steering.
A heavier wheel, just like a heavier bike in general, doesn't "better resist drag". Yes, it makes the bike slow down slower, just as it makes it harder to speed up the bike.
When people say heavier bikes and/or wheels "resist drag better", it sounds like all that extra mass somehow magically makes it so that you need less power on the pedals to maintain speed. That is simply wrong.
When people say heavier bikes and/or wheels "resist drag better", it sounds like all that extra mass somehow magically makes it so that you need less power on the pedals to maintain speed. That is simply wrong.
No, it's not wrong. Given the same cross-section and initial speed, a heavier object moving through a fluid over a certain time will decelerate less than a lighter object, and so will require less energy to bring it up to the speed it had before decelerating, because the difference in speed will be less. For the same reason, you would not ride while dragging an open umbrella behind yourself, but you'd have no problem putting a metal cube of the same mass on your stem. It's the ratio of cross-section and mass.
> a heavier object moving through a fluid over a certain time will decelerate less than a lighter object
True
> and so will require less energy to bring it up to the speed it had before decelerating, because the difference in speed will be less
False
The higher inertia of the heavier object resisted the deceleration, and that same higher inertia will resist acceleration too in exactly the same way. You've gained nothing at all.
> For the same reason, you would not ride while dragging an open umbrella behind yourself, but you'd have no problem putting a metal cube of the same mass on your stem. It's the ratio of cross-section and mass.
Now you're talking about aerodynamics which is a whole different matter. For aerodynamics, cross-section is of course a major factor (not the ratio of cross-section and mass!). That's pretty obvious, but has nothing to do with a discussion about mass.
(Ratio of cross-section and mass is relevant for things in free fall, because there gravity is the relevant force. Completely different from a vehicle on a flat road.)
True
> and so will require less energy to bring it up to the speed it had before decelerating, because the difference in speed will be less
False
The higher inertia of the heavier object resisted the deceleration, and that same higher inertia will resist acceleration too in exactly the same way. You've gained nothing at all.
> For the same reason, you would not ride while dragging an open umbrella behind yourself, but you'd have no problem putting a metal cube of the same mass on your stem. It's the ratio of cross-section and mass.
Now you're talking about aerodynamics which is a whole different matter. For aerodynamics, cross-section is of course a major factor (not the ratio of cross-section and mass!). That's pretty obvious, but has nothing to do with a discussion about mass.
(Ratio of cross-section and mass is relevant for things in free fall, because there gravity is the relevant force. Completely different from a vehicle on a flat road.)
Drag will exert a constant force regardless of mass. So heavier wheels may allow you to coast farther, but at constant speed they don't affect the drag component.
I didn't say greater mass changes drag, I said it resists drag better. As you say, the force remains constant, so with constant force and greater mass, acceleration gets a lesser absolute value.
My personal $.02 on frame stiffness is that it's way overrated.
The bike I personally spend most time on is a steel frame, but I've never once asked myself a question of "is this stiff / bouncy" enough. When I started having issues with too much road vibration giving me a mild case of cyclists palsy (temporary mild paralysis of ulnar nerve), it was due to the surface I was riding on (gravel) and the distances / times. Solution was adding suspension stem to the handlebar.
To me, the "steel is real" argument speaks about the general durability / repairability of the frame. But AFAIK, modern CroMoly steel butted tubes aren't "that" great for welding or cold setting either (to be debated). IMO the famous road repairs of 90's adventurers who had their cracked frames repaired by no matter what farmer with a stick welder in the midle of Kazakhstan are simply long gone now.
Personally, the thing I watch for in a bike frame first and foremost is the geometry and the actual personal fit (ideally by a professional fitter).
The number one issue I've seen most beginners have related to bike frames is simply being too optimistic on their abilities and spending thousands on frames that they simply don't have the mobility and flexibility for.
The bike I personally spend most time on is a steel frame, but I've never once asked myself a question of "is this stiff / bouncy" enough. When I started having issues with too much road vibration giving me a mild case of cyclists palsy (temporary mild paralysis of ulnar nerve), it was due to the surface I was riding on (gravel) and the distances / times. Solution was adding suspension stem to the handlebar.
To me, the "steel is real" argument speaks about the general durability / repairability of the frame. But AFAIK, modern CroMoly steel butted tubes aren't "that" great for welding or cold setting either (to be debated). IMO the famous road repairs of 90's adventurers who had their cracked frames repaired by no matter what farmer with a stick welder in the midle of Kazakhstan are simply long gone now.
Personally, the thing I watch for in a bike frame first and foremost is the geometry and the actual personal fit (ideally by a professional fitter).
The number one issue I've seen most beginners have related to bike frames is simply being too optimistic on their abilities and spending thousands on frames that they simply don't have the mobility and flexibility for.
Perceptions on stiffness vary greatly with your inseam length, and I feel like it's fruitless to have conversations without stating what frame size you're looking at.
If you start with a bike model that is already known to be mushy and try to ride a 60 or 62cm size it's going to be even worse. When I still rode I chose a frame that some other club members characterized as 'harsh' but they were riding something more like a 56. Even a couple inches makes a huge difference in leverage.
If you start with a bike model that is already known to be mushy and try to ride a 60 or 62cm size it's going to be even worse. When I still rode I chose a frame that some other club members characterized as 'harsh' but they were riding something more like a 56. Even a couple inches makes a huge difference in leverage.
Yeah, pretty much. Bicycle frames are basically completely rigid vertically, as far as the forces that are normally encountered is concerned. The only possible source of vertical compliance are the tires and the suspension, if there is any. Some frames may be more or less laterally or torsionally compliant, but I'm skeptic that either makes much of a difference while riding.
I'd add saddle rails/saddles, handlebars, and forks to that list of vertically compliant parts. There's also a bit in the wheels, but only 1mm or so.
I don't get the whole stiffness argument. If the frame is not stiff then some of my energy goes into flexing the frame back and forth as I pedal, and eventually gets wasted as heat. This is bad if I'm into some sort of competitive riding. But if I ride the bike just for the exercise, then I'm interested in wasting energy and I don't care too much about how it was wasted.
Not only that but a frame that's not stiff is going to result in more play in the chain and cables that lever against the frame. That means uncommanded or skipped shifts, uneven brake feel, sloppy braking and cornering feel as the frame gets loaded/unloaded in different directions.
The real reason a frame should not be optimized entirely for stiffness at the expense of everything else is material fatigue. A frame that maximizes stiffness is a frame that puts its materials under more stress. So if you dial up the stiffness all the way, you'll get less longevity and eventual stress fractures or worse.
What most riders think of as stiffness/springiness/feel in their bike comes from the flex (or lack thereof) in their tires, seat, seatpost, spokes, and the harmonic response of their frame to vibrations from the ride. That response is actually a key part of subjective rider satisfaction, I think because we subconsciously feel more in control (because we can feel what the bike is doing better) when the vibrations are more pronounced.
The real reason a frame should not be optimized entirely for stiffness at the expense of everything else is material fatigue. A frame that maximizes stiffness is a frame that puts its materials under more stress. So if you dial up the stiffness all the way, you'll get less longevity and eventual stress fractures or worse.
What most riders think of as stiffness/springiness/feel in their bike comes from the flex (or lack thereof) in their tires, seat, seatpost, spokes, and the harmonic response of their frame to vibrations from the ride. That response is actually a key part of subjective rider satisfaction, I think because we subconsciously feel more in control (because we can feel what the bike is doing better) when the vibrations are more pronounced.
A stiff bike is an efficient bike, but not a comfortable one.
I once rode in the Gong Ride (Sydney to Wollongong) and, determined to set my bike up as efficiently as possible, pumped my tyres up to 120 PSI. The bike felt incredibly fast ... but my testicles went numb.
I once rode in the Gong Ride (Sydney to Wollongong) and, determined to set my bike up as efficiently as possible, pumped my tyres up to 120 PSI. The bike felt incredibly fast ... but my testicles went numb.
> but my testicles went numb
This is about the seat you are using and the time you are spending on it, not the stiffness of the frame or ride.
There is a reason why male seats have cut-outs. You just need to find one that works for you.
This is about the seat you are using and the time you are spending on it, not the stiffness of the frame or ride.
There is a reason why male seats have cut-outs. You just need to find one that works for you.
Didn't feel much stiffness for a while after that then
Tips:
1. Wear cycling shorts and pull your boys up so that you're not sitting on them when you ride.
2. Don't put so much weight on the saddle. The saddle is not a seat, it's meant as an extra point of control to lean the frame. Put your weight on the pedals. Also, is the saddle at the correct height?
I ride tires at 115 PSI daily and have never had issues with numbness anywhere on my body.
1. Wear cycling shorts and pull your boys up so that you're not sitting on them when you ride.
2. Don't put so much weight on the saddle. The saddle is not a seat, it's meant as an extra point of control to lean the frame. Put your weight on the pedals. Also, is the saddle at the correct height?
I ride tires at 115 PSI daily and have never had issues with numbness anywhere on my body.
CyclingAbout has an amazing video on frame stiffness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f8PGpKUKro
i guess it makes sense when this article is talking about road bikes, but in MTB and gravel bikes, where geometry is so much more malleable, the geometry plays such a huge role in stiffness, almost independent of material.
you can have a crazy stiff steel bike (e.g. kona honzo esd) or a crazy compliant carbon bike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f8PGpKUKro
i guess it makes sense when this article is talking about road bikes, but in MTB and gravel bikes, where geometry is so much more malleable, the geometry plays such a huge role in stiffness, almost independent of material.
you can have a crazy stiff steel bike (e.g. kona honzo esd) or a crazy compliant carbon bike.
This. You can more or less get any kind of stiffness, with any material by changing the geometry. I guess the different feel that people have when using frames of various materials is more due to geometric constraints of the frame. A frame with the same geometry (which includes tube thickness etc) and a different material will behave differently. But in theory you could construct a frame with equal stiffness in all directions from other materials. However, you might run into other problems, like fatigue resistance or tensile strength or sth with a particular geometry. That will then force you to choose another geometry for other materials (e.g. aluminum frames will have a bigger tube diameter than steel frames, due to buckling of the tubes - if you want equal weight)
Just some general thoughts, so please understand I am not prescribing one over the other. The ride quality of a bike is largely dependent on frame geometry and manufacturing process. With a good layup, and geometry, carbon can be more stiff then steel. This is actually the promise of carbon, to be stiffer then steel while being lighter. However a good quality aluminum bike can also be lighter, and more stiff, then a carbon bike with a low quality layup. Steel tubing also comes in a variety of different qualities.
https://gravelcycling.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/steel-the-dif....
The obvious benefit to steel for me is the reliability and repairability. Ride quality can also be different depending on surface, steel is better at dampening vibrations then aluminum on gravel surfaces. Although carbon can obviously be quite nice, and you are seeing it used in tough ultra distance rides like the GDMBR. That said your wheel choice, and seatpost, will have a bigger impact on ride quality then frame material as far as vibration. Generally speaking the weight of your bike is going to be most noticable on climbs. How noticable will also depend on your gear range.
This video about titanium bike myths discusses some of the points I outlined above in further detail.
https://youtu.be/1CTjg1TFHDc
https://gravelcycling.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/steel-the-dif....
The obvious benefit to steel for me is the reliability and repairability. Ride quality can also be different depending on surface, steel is better at dampening vibrations then aluminum on gravel surfaces. Although carbon can obviously be quite nice, and you are seeing it used in tough ultra distance rides like the GDMBR. That said your wheel choice, and seatpost, will have a bigger impact on ride quality then frame material as far as vibration. Generally speaking the weight of your bike is going to be most noticable on climbs. How noticable will also depend on your gear range.
This video about titanium bike myths discusses some of the points I outlined above in further detail.
https://youtu.be/1CTjg1TFHDc
It's easy with steel to go outside of the realm of easy repairability. In the last days of steel before aluminum became affordable and even before carbon fiber did, it was common to for fancier bikes to have tubing that changed thickness (interior of course) once or twice, as stiffness at the ends of the tubs tends to matter more, and it's easier to weld thicker pieces of metal.
And then you had Serotta, who before they switched to titanium, made steel frames that were not just double-butted, but they also spirally ground the butting to maintain most of the torsional stiffness but lose a couple more ounces of weight.
And then you had Serotta, who before they switched to titanium, made steel frames that were not just double-butted, but they also spirally ground the butting to maintain most of the torsional stiffness but lose a couple more ounces of weight.
Yeah, but try getting carbon repaired after a crash. It's not impossible, but it's also not as easy to work with as a material. That said a lot of new high end carbon bikes will come with crash replacement on the frame.
https://www.cube.eu/bg-en/cube-world/technology/test-lab has more photos of a test lab, split into road vs mountain bike tests. As a mountain biker I don't care much about road conditions but I want the frame and suspension tested going down stairs, jumps and other forces.
This takes me back. My Dad was an amateur road racer and time-trialer, and also an engineer. So of course he designed his own frame geometry and would talk at length about stiffness. Back in the days of Reynolds steel tubing this was. No fancy carbon fiber.
Bike stiffness is really interesting, especially when compared to skiing. I think its easier to understand with boot and ski stiffness which operate in similar manners, where a stiffer boot allows you to convert more of your movement down to the ski instead of being absorbed by the boot!
I recently switched my indoor trainer from my aluminum frame to and old carbon frame and found it much more comfortable, which I think is from the less stiff old carbon allowing more movement.
I wasn't aware of bottom bracket stiffness, but seems to make sense that single speeds tend to feel better for me if the bottom bracket can be simpler and stiffer?
I recently switched my indoor trainer from my aluminum frame to and old carbon frame and found it much more comfortable, which I think is from the less stiff old carbon allowing more movement.
I wasn't aware of bottom bracket stiffness, but seems to make sense that single speeds tend to feel better for me if the bottom bracket can be simpler and stiffer?
Yes. Imagine rowing a boat with flexible oars. Then it is easy to understand how much force is lost.
Well, not really. It's not like you'd be permanently bending the oars. When you complete each stroke you're going to get back nearly all of the energy that went into the elastic deformation. There's going to inevitably be some energy lost in warming up the oar, but it's not at all obvious that a slightly flexible oar would be perceptively or even effectively worse than a stiff oar.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you have a quality aluminum frame bike, it probably has a carbon fork. If you find the ride harsh, you'll get most of the benefit of a carbon frame by swapping in a carbon seat post, stem, and bars. There are plenty of good, moderately priced carbon parts available, and changing these parts is very simple. If you are on 23mm tires, change them for 28mm, which will fit in almost all rim brakes.
On lo-end carbon frame bikes you will find alloy bars and seat posts, which is silly.
On lo-end carbon frame bikes you will find alloy bars and seat posts, which is silly.
My impression with stiffness is can be annoying if once is not pushing hard in a criterium or something. I have a carbon/Alu frame and an old steel bike. The steel bike shields me from the imperfections of the road. For long rides that is ideal. Very interesting article.
Funny. The YouTube algorithm just recommended this review of 1990s mountain bike that has a cable in place of the downtube. https://youtu.be/0ekXSqE4gNQ
I got a Surly steel bike that rides like a dream, I can't go back to the stiffer stuff. I also had an aluminum bike break in half just cause I rode off a curb, I don't worry about that at all with steel frames.
> But when it comes to pedalling, we know that higher is not automatically better.
Sure, if you like weird rubbing to show up under load (e.g. steep climbing) that isn't there normally.
Sure, if you like weird rubbing to show up under load (e.g. steep climbing) that isn't there normally.
I had an aluminum frame Cannondale racing road bike that was exhausting to ride because it had a short wheelbase, compact frame (small triangle), and was very stiff.
Obligatory reference to Jan Heine, the "heretic" who has been talking about this for many years:
Frame stiffness double blind test: https://www.renehersecycles.com/what-is-planing/
https://www.renehersecycles.com/the-biomechanics-of-planing/
https://www.renehersecycles.com/expert-discussion-on-frame-s...
https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-4-stiffer-frames-are-fa...
Frame stiffness double blind test: https://www.renehersecycles.com/what-is-planing/
https://www.renehersecycles.com/the-biomechanics-of-planing/
https://www.renehersecycles.com/expert-discussion-on-frame-s...
https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-4-stiffer-frames-are-fa...
How is an article about stiffness and deformations lacking a single picture of the forces in play?
There are a bunch of photos showing the test fixtures that they're using to measure frame flex which pretty clearly show what they're constraining and where they're adding force with the cylinder. It's not a free body diagram and it doesn't show the rider, but what exactly are you looking for?
Well, diagrams. Apply this force, get this displacement, this is how wheels are out of plane (disregarding that turning makes them out of plane already).
None of the pictures are labeled, and they only show one setup: pressing the pedal without sitting on the seat, without holding the handlebars, while both wheels remain in plane. I'm not sure if it's even possible to keep both wheels in plane when pedalling on a moving bicycle, if only due to pressing on the handlebars.
None of the pictures are labeled, and they only show one setup: pressing the pedal without sitting on the seat, without holding the handlebars, while both wheels remain in plane. I'm not sure if it's even possible to keep both wheels in plane when pedalling on a moving bicycle, if only due to pressing on the handlebars.
The points the article makes about torsional and lateral tension helped me understand better why I prefer steel over carbon. I've always described it as "feeling more in-sync" with the bike. For example, the subtle instinctive biomechanical action of putting more weight down on the outside pedal to re-align the wheels when you start to understeer just feels great, like you're "one" with the bicycle.