Do I want a steel frame?

[lulubel]

After almost deciding what my next bike was going to be, I'm now in doubt again.

I've been doing a bit of reading up on steel frames, and I wonder if it might be a good choice for me. I'm not so much bothered about having the lightest, fastest bike as having a bike that I love riding, that's reasonably comfy, reasonably quick, tough and hardwearing, and will go on practically forever. I like looking at shiny, new bikes, but I'm never really interested in buying one. I'd rather have a bike that's a trusted "old friend" than the newest piece of bling.

The trouble is, I haven't got a great deal of money to spend, so a custom built frame is completely out. I came across Surly while I was searching, and like the idea of the "do anything" versatility of the cross check, but the frame geometry seems wrong for me - I've seen people say the top tube is on the long side. At 3kg for the frame and forks, people also say it's heavy. Is that heavy? (My complete old bike weighs 10kg.)

Then I discovered the Condor Fratello, which is nearly twice the price of the Surly frame and pushing the boundary of what I can afford, but the geometry looks really nice. The seat tube, top tube and head tube lengths on the smallest size are all within 5mm of the measurements I took today on my old frame, and the head and seat tube angles are within 0.4 degrees of the angles on the current model of my bike (I couldn't figure out how to measure the angles accurately on mine!)

The difficulty is, if I got the Fratello, I wouldn't really have any money left once I'd bought the frameset and a pair of wheels, so I'd have to recover cosmetically damaged parts off my old bike to make up a complete bike until the insurance payment comes through (which will take months at best because procedure here is that we have to go to court for it). I'm pretty sure everything is fine to use, but will I be able to fit my mixture of tiagra/sora/2300 onto the new frame? Is everything fairly standard? I know I'll need a new BB to fit the new frame, and I'd hope Condor would supply and fit that for me if I asked.

Building a bike almost from scratch with mostly used parts is a bit of a daunting prospect, but since I'll be taking them off the old bike first, I think that should make it easier to figure out what I'm doing.

If I'm going to do this, I need to be really sure a steel frame is what I want. I could just buy a 2011 complete bike, it would be a whole lot easier, and I'm sure I'd love it, but I wonder if steel would be a better choice for me and what I want from a bike.

Thoughts, anyone? What's good/bad about steel? Have I got some good ideas here, or am I just having a crazy moment?

 

[RedRider]

I just got a Surly Steamroller, the Crosscheck's simple cousin, and it rides beautifully. I've found myself searching out potholes just to amaze myself with how comfortably it handles them. I love it. It's different from the Crosscheck in terms of geometry and doesn't have the braze ons or gears (although I'm running it with drops and two brakes) so it's lighter but I think it uses the same tubing. I don't think I'll ever buy an aluminium bike again.

 

[Scoosh]

I have 2 bikes:
Bike 1 is an old (25 year old ) Specialized Crossroads Cruz hybrid, alloy frame, flat bars

Bike 2 is a 2009 Condor Fratello , steel frame, drop bars

We have cobble stones on some of our roads around Edinburgh and I was commenting today that the steel-framed Fratello is so-o-o much more comfortable going over the cobbles than the alloy-framed Spesh. Is this just down to the 25-yr age difference ? I doubt it. The Fratello really does feel as if it is absorbing much of the 'cobble-shock'.

Steel is reckoned to be good for tourers, audax bikes and for longer-distance comfort. If you intend to be riding for more than, say 4-5 hours at a time, I would give steel some real consideration.

Condor are very good to deal with too, in my experience. I had a Bike Fit with Paul Hewitt and sent the dimensions to Condor, we discussed the specs - and I had a very nice bike in a big box.

So, in summary - if you are going to be doing longer rides, over questionable road surfaces (but not dirt tracks !), consider steel.

Do you know anyone who has a steel frame who could let you test it ?

HTH

 

[Alembicbassman]

Genesis Equilibrium is nice

£700

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Genesis-E...0827641583?pt=UK_Bikes_GL&hash=item4162a1beef

 

[Crackle]

How much can you salvage off your old bike. What about building up a frame and buying the components you have to replace?

Genesis and Kinesis are two manufacturers who both do excellent frame sets. Others include, Surly, On One, Charge, Dawes, etc... So much choice, the mind boggles. You should find something that suits you in that lot.

Steel frames are typically a couple of pounds heavier than an equivalent ally frame. so 5 to 6 instead of 3 to 4, roughly.

 

[Piemaster]

Steel? yes you do. I've got an On-one Pompino and have never regretted for one moment buying it. It is the most pleasing thing to ride.
(or if you prefer its geared brother the Kaffenback, same frame as pompino AFAIK apart from the dropouts)

 

[lulubel]

So, in summary - if you are going to be doing longer rides, over questionable road surfaces (but not dirt tracks !), consider steel.

Do you know anyone who has a steel frame who could let you test it ?

I was tempted by something that could handle some dirt, which is why I started out looking at the Surly, but the reality is I already have a MTB that I never ride! Yes, definitely questionable surfaces, and I'm hoping to do my first (of many) 100+ miles ride this year, although whether I'll manage it or not really depends on how quickly I recover from my injuries.

I don't know anyone with a steel frame, unfortunately. Most of the road cyclists around here seem to fancy themselves as the next Contador (presumably without the drug habit) and have the flashiest bikes they can afford.

How much can you salvage off your old bike. What about building up a frame and buying the components you have to replace?

Quite a lot, in reality, although I didn't realise that until I had a proper look at it the other day. The only things that are actually broken are the frame, forks and front wheel. There's cosmetic damage to the bars, stem, shifters and saddle, but nothing that makes them unusable, and the drivetrain all seems to be fine. Once I've retaped the bars and I'm sitting on the saddle, you'd probably have to look closely to notice the damage.

That's why I started thinking about just buying a frame and wheels.

Genesis and Kinesis are two manufacturers who both do excellent frame sets. Others include, Surly, On One, Charge, Dawes, etc... So much choice, the mind boggles. You should find something that suits you in that lot.

Steel frames are typically a couple of pounds heavier than an equivalent ally frame. so 5 to 6 instead of 3 to 4, roughly.

I've had a quick look through the websites of the companies you mentioned, and Genesis and Kinesis don't seem to make their frames small enough for me (I was riding a 47cm women specific frame), I'd already rejected Charge although I can't remember exactly why now, and Dawes make small frames, but they seem to have quite long top tubes. Which brings me back to the Condor!

I assumed steel would be heavier than alu, but I didn't have anywhere to start from in comparing, if that makes sense. A couple of pounds is neither here nor there. I vary in weight by more than that between getting up and bed time!

 

[jim55]

If weight is a concern I'd go for a Reynolds frame and start there ,
I built this up yest ,Reynolds 531c frame and forks , 8.1 kilo

 

[fossyant]

Steel has a more comfortable ride than alloy. But, any frame if designed right can be stiff, compliant etc. etc. I have two twenty plus year old steel framed bikes and both roll in at 9kgs. They both ride better than my alloy/carbon bike over rough roads, they 'zuzz' out the vibrations. Both are stiff frames though.

You will be able to fit your current stuff to any steel frame.

 

[Crackle]

Just on the Kinesis, say the T2, which is their training/commute frame, they do that in a 43, 46, 49, measured centre to centre on the seat tube. You'd need to look at the geometry spec of your old bike (might need to dig online or e-mail the manufacturer), to see how your 47 was measured i.e. centre to centre or centre to top. I'd be very surprised if Kinesis didn't have a frame to fit. I haven't looked at the others yet.

Here's the spec link http://www.kinesisbikes.co.uk/technical/racelight/t2

 

[Crackle]

Ah, just read back your previous posts on sizes. I take all that back. The top tube length is way more than you had.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

a house is not a cyclist's home unless it has at least one steel framed bike in it.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

having a bike that I love riding, that's reasonably comfy, reasonably quick, tough and hardwearing, and will go on practically forever.

That, is either steel or Ti.

My 30 year old 531 25 inch steel frame and forks are 2.5kg and 0.8kg respectively, yet the whole bike is just under 10kg without a single strand of carbon fibre. The bike's springiness and liveliness is impossible to describe - I often can't help smiling when I set off on it.

 

[Crackle]

Just a quick note on your frame size, as bikes with such short top tubes seem thin on the ground. You need to look quite carefully at the geometry and your position. For instance, two bikes with the same equivalent top tube length but a different head tube angle will feel quite different and the same goes for having a different seat tube angle.

http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.html

If you're buying anew, it's worth re-evaluating your position and bike geometry.

 

[lulubel]

You will be able to fit your current stuff to any steel frame.

Thanks, that makes the decision a lot easier.

Just on the Kinesis, say the T2, which is their training/commute frame, they do that in a 43, 46, 49, measured centre to centre on the seat tube.

Is the T2 not an alu frame? It says 7005 series.

Ah, just read back your previous posts on sizes. I take all that back. The top tube length is way more than you had.

I'm not actually sure that figure Trek gave me was correct. The length they gave me for the effective top tube was 494mm, but I've since measured the bike, and that's the actual top tube length (I measured it as 495mm). The effective top tube, as near as I can get - and I did use a spirit level - is, 507mm, which puts it so close to the measurements of the current model that I think I'm safe enough to use those as my starting point. The only thing that's odd is that Trek give a seat tube length of 428mm and I'm getting 455mm from the middle of the BB to the very top of the tube. They don't specify where they're measuring from/to, though.

The seat and head angles for the Trek are 74.6 and 71 respectively, and for the Condor are 75 and 71, so the seat tube on the Condor is slightly more sloping, which will increase the ETT a bit, but I can't imagine 0.4 degrees will have enough of an effect to cause me problems. Head tube is 113 on mine, 110 on the Condor, and BB height is 270 on mine, 265 on the Condor.

It does seem odd to me that they're so similar, since the Condor isn't women specific, and I am wondering what I've missed. (But the current Trek model is marketed as a "race ready, performance road bike", so perhaps the geometry is just quite similar to a unisex audax/tourer that's primarily marketed towards customers with longer torso/arms.)