In the bicycle world, the steel vs fill-in-the-blank frame material conversation is so seemingly prevalent that one can easily wonder whether or not a visit to the local bike shop will end in a vehement, single sided argument with both sides walking away equally bitter. It's an all too often classic fight of the ages; the iconoclast, vintage thumping retro-grouch vs the space age, "latest and greatest everything is better" proselytizing contrarian. Though the above mentioned observation may seem somewhat black and white, it unfortunately proves to be the case in most instances. Seldom do I experience truly open ended conversations encompassing unbiased views pertaining to "old vs new" that encourage a rational middle ground. For this very reason I desire to open up a can of worms that seems to stand as the mother-of-all conversational focal points within the bicycling community while doing so with the most carefully considered and all encompassing approach possible.
All is compromise
When selecting tubing material for your bicycle there is without question a large handful of variables that must be considered: the more important being frame weight, handling characteristics, load capacity, terrain application, longevity and ease of repair. What it really boils down to is what you plan on doing with your bike: road racing, loaded touring, trail riding, track racing, urban commuting, cyclocross, ect. The desired application should dictate initial considerations followed by aspects of lesser concern. The next focal point for anyone without bottomless pockets of cash would logically be the cost-benefit-ratio. An acquisition that incorporates palatable levels of reliability, cost effectiveness and performance is what I feel most cyclists look for and will serve as an adequate template for what follows. Steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon fiber compose the landscape of modern frame building material and vary highly in cost, weight, ultimate tensile strength, fatigue life, ease of working (welding, bending, heat treatment, ect) and handling characteristics. Diving into metallurgic properties can in and of itself warrant for a lengthy write up that I hope to avoid within this post while conversely touching on some of the basic aspects that give steel the characteristics that have contributed to a somewhat cult like obsession for many. Hearing catchy phrases thrown around such as "steel is real" and "hand built steel is the best" as often as I do has only further solidified the fact that though steel is an outstanding material choice for many, a tremendous amount of it's momentum in re-emerging as a high end bicycle frame material is partially based on marketing capitalization and myth surrounding racing legends as well as custom frame builders. The reality is that steel bicycle frames can be made as either outstanding tools that endure decades of abuse, or as poorly fabricated, incorrectly purposed junkers that suffer from terrible handling characteristics and low fatigue/tensile life expectancy.
 |
| Though slightly dated, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology publication "Bicycle Science" has let the numbers do the talking with this informative comparrison chart. Not alot has changed with steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon composits over the years. |
Economic material, economic results
Having worked as a professional metal fabricator for the last 4 years I have been afforded the luxury of having first hand experience with working steel of all sorts. From stainless and chromoly alloys to hardened tool and hot/cold rolled mild steel, I have spent countless hours bending, machining, plasma cuing, welding, rolling, hydraulically forming, grinding, polishing, sanding and tumbling steel in most ways imaginable. I have watched very low quality steel take tremendous abuse over and over again without failing, and conversely watched things like chromoly fail from what would seem like normal use under conditions that in theory would not exceed it's fatigue or ultimate tensile threshold. The reality of the matter is that not all steels are extruded, bent/rolled, forged/cast or welded and heat treated equally. It is my opinion that these facets account for more of the wild card variables that give rise to frame failure out on the road than say the bicycle simply being "cheap". Having owned everything from hand built fixed gear and mountain bike frames to mass produced counterparts of both modern and vintage makes, the overall take away from years of riding both ends of the spectrum is that products of comparable quality can be found in both small-batch made bespoke bicycles as well as japanese/taiwanese mass produced frame sets. Though this is a generally accurate rule of thumb, it is by no means always the case. It's not so much that your fill-in-the-blank custom frame builder of choice has a mythical, Midas-like touch that renders their work impervious to failure as it is that small batched, hand worked, quality controlled production tends to be more conducive to consistency than say mega factories with super large batches of mass produced frames.
 |
| Kusaka San of the now defunct Vivalo Bicycles tacks an aligned bicycle frame. I owned and heavily rode a bicycle built by this man that was nothing short of spectacular. |
Why I choose steel
I often times liken the act of purchasing/riding a steel bicycle to that of owning a Toyota as opposed to a Porsche. Though the Porsche (being super thin walled, light weight aluminum and carbon fiber frames) will get you from point A to B (usually), the likelihood of being able to do so consistently, for long periods of time without experiencing issues along the way is not so high. The Toyota (being steel bicycle frames) is by most standards an inexpensive vehicle to own that will typically last for ages without showing many signs of problem. Being that parts are so readily available, in more cases than not it is substantially easier and more affordable to service when time comes. Though the Toyota will generally be slightly heavier, slower, and less sporty in appearance, it's utilitarian purpose as a quality vehicle that excels at many things, while failing to be perfect at any one, pays dividends for the not so purely race oriented consumer. The ultimate differentiating factor between the Porsche (similar makes as well) and Toyota is that the Porsche is a sport machine being sold to typically non-sporting consumers, whereas the Toyota was built more so with comfort, ease of transport and reliability in mind. Just as the automotive industry benefits massively from counter intuitive marketing schemes does the ever lucrative bicycle industry seek to do the same by selling the fastest, lightest and most technologically advanced product to a consumer who does not only lack a need for a such a specialized synthesis, but would more than likely otherwise lack the inclination to make such a purchase all together. Typically the speed of these race machines come at the cost of harsher geometry, super stiff riding characteristics (the previous not pertaining to suspended mountain bike frames), super high tolerance component requirements, seriously compromised fatigue life and greater likelihood of catastrophic failure during a crash. Some of these mega bicycle manufacturing think tanks have not only insulted our intelligence as consumers by attempting to sell us fragile products with short life expectancy, but often time locked us into product marriage with new and obscure component standards that leave us going back to the same few, if not singular, component manufacturer(s) for their usually expensive replacement parts. The beauty with the steel bicycle (think Toyota again) is that for the most part, product support, interchangeability and universal standardization has opened up the doors to inexpensive repair, DIY modification and easier home mechanic serviceability.
 |
My old steel workhorse (mass produced 1989 Diamondback Apex) that has
endured innumerable loaded commutes, city bus rides,
truck bed transporting, off road rides, pot hole hits, bicycle rack smacks, ect..
Though the steel tubing is slightly thicker than I would normally prefer,
the handling characteristics are outstanding with the bicycle loaded down.
|
Racing requires race machines
Those of you who have read even a few of my blog posts will have come to the realization that I stand firm in my decision that we as "serious" cyclists have to level with ourselves in acknowledging the fact that most of us simply are not, and never will be racers. It's something that contrary to heavy marketing exposure, we as consumers must come to terms with if we are to establish rational purchasing habits.
Hypothetically speaking, if I were to set out on a mission to seek contention in professional racing I would certainly look toward lighter, stiffer and more aerodynamic bicycle materials such as aluminum and titanium. When longevity and previously mentioned considerations cease to be critical, the text above understandably looses most traction. Winning races has not, and never will be about mounting your bike and hoping that it will perform daily, over and over again with minimal issue. The main consideration in racing is that the bicycle can complete it's task well enough that the race(s?) has/have been completed without any mechanical failures. When sponsors such as component manufacturers and frame constructors facilitate racer's sporting endeavors, all necessity for long term durability and strength become sacrificed at the expense of speed in every dimension that it entails. For applications such as these, choosing steel begins to seem like less and less like a logical decision as carbon fiber immediately comes to mind. Though carbon fiber often fails catastrophically during races, it is typically negated as a concern due to the consistent replacement of frame sets, wheels and all carbon cockpit components donated by sponsors. The disposable factor is more or less irrelevant for these high echelon cycling teams and riders who are the beneficiaries of a never ending flow of replacement bits. For those of us who are not so generously taken care of, seeing our dollar go a long way is simply a must in a world where it is becoming incrasingly depreciated and harder to come by. It is for these very reasons that I see steel as a frame material has making the most sense for my riding habits and mentality. Though it might not be for everyone, it is certainly one that almost everyone can afford to own and replace if damaged or stolen.
Hypothetically speaking, if I were to set out on a mission to seek contention in professional racing I would certainly look toward lighter, stiffer and more aerodynamic bicycle materials such as aluminum and titanium. When longevity and previously mentioned considerations cease to be critical, the text above understandably looses most traction. Winning races has not, and never will be about mounting your bike and hoping that it will perform daily, over and over again with minimal issue. The main consideration in racing is that the bicycle can complete it's task well enough that the race(s?) has/have been completed without any mechanical failures. When sponsors such as component manufacturers and frame constructors facilitate racer's sporting endeavors, all necessity for long term durability and strength become sacrificed at the expense of speed in every dimension that it entails. For applications such as these, choosing steel begins to seem like less and less like a logical decision as carbon fiber immediately comes to mind. Though carbon fiber often fails catastrophically during races, it is typically negated as a concern due to the consistent replacement of frame sets, wheels and all carbon cockpit components donated by sponsors. The disposable factor is more or less irrelevant for these high echelon cycling teams and riders who are the beneficiaries of a never ending flow of replacement bits. For those of us who are not so generously taken care of, seeing our dollar go a long way is simply a must in a world where it is becoming incrasingly depreciated and harder to come by. It is for these very reasons that I see steel as a frame material has making the most sense for my riding habits and mentality. Though it might not be for everyone, it is certainly one that almost everyone can afford to own and replace if damaged or stolen.
