I feel this HN account had been just waiting for this article.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] steelframe|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] zwkrt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zwieback|3 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] ehnto|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giuliomagnifico|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackmott|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LAC-Tech|3 years ago|reply
Also need to stop talking to other cyclists online. "Oh yeah 100 miles is easy", not for me it isn't.
[+] [-] mperham|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kshahkshah|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] m463|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ip26|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jupp0r|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marmetio|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhn_mk1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmspring|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] wnolens|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MezzoDelCammin|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Zigurd|3 years ago|reply
Elite athletes are a different species from you and me.
[+] [-] some-guy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] texxtxxet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MezzoDelCammin|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hinkley|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] fluoridation|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] litoE|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ak217|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] abrookewood|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] LesZedCB|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dranudin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markandrewj|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] hinkley|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mtmail|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dboreham|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soared|3 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Zigurd|3 years ago|reply
On lo-end carbon frame bikes you will find alloy bars and seat posts, which is silly.
[+] [-] javier_e06|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martyvis|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cloudc0de|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|3 years ago|reply
Sure, if you like weird rubbing to show up under load (e.g. steep climbing) that isn't there normally.
[+] [-] 1letterunixname|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] virgulino|3 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] rhn_mk1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oakmad|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] james_woods|3 years ago|reply