Steel Frame Recommendation

hey you have a good eye for quality, i would add to your short list the Colnago Master-X (Master 30th) steel frame, more confort or less confort weighted against frame material is a long debate, im not sure what is the truth but i support your interest in steel for many other reasons,

I've been eyeballing the Torelli Nitro Express myself. I have no experience with the bikes but they seem to have a good reputation, they look good and I like that that the Nitro comes with a 11/8 steerer option.

vspa said:

hey you have a good eye for quality, i would add to your short list the Colnago Master-X (Master 30th) steel frame, more confort or less confort weighted against frame material is a long debate, im not sure what is the truth but i support your interest in steel for many other reasons,

The Master-X is certainly a beauty, but it's not cheap. The Tommasini Sintesi and the Torelli Corsa Strada are lookers and a bit less expensive than the Master-X. The Soma Smoothies while not as beautiful as the others, has a damned attractive price. OP, you can't go wrong with any of them so long as they fit you properly. The Smoothie will be a bit less racy in handling than the other two.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by bike girl [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Hi, I'm new to the forum and am looking for advice on Steel Frames. I'm currently on a aluminum frame w/ carbon fork, seat post, etc. I'm looking for an upgrade to a smoother ride & am going for a steel frame. I'm looking at the following 3 bikes: Soma Smoothie, Torelli Corsa Strada, Tommasini Sintesi
If you own one of these bikes please share your experience & thoughts about them. THANK YOU!!

That sure brings back almost 25 years of memories, when I use to ride steel. I had a couple of Tommasini's and a Colnago Master, amongst others. I use to crack most of my steel frames in little more than a season, where the old shift levers use to mount to the frame. If you are not going to race on these, they are all very nice, classic design.[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drool.gif[/IMG]

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by WillemJM [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That sure brings back almost 25 years of memories, when I use to ride steel. I had a couple of Tommasini's and a Colnago Master, amongst others. I use to crack most of my steel frames in little more than a season, where the old shift levers use to mount to the frame. If you are not going to race on these, they are all very nice, classic design.[IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/drool.gif[/IMG]

Some of these new thin walled steel bikes can be built up to 17-18lb bikes, why not race them? I didn't know cracking was an issue, but that's what happens when yer budget limits you to 531. I always lusted after a Columbus frame back in the ole days.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Some of these new thin walled steel bikes can be built up to 17-18lb bikes, why not race them? I didn't know cracking was an issue, but that's what happens when yer budget limits you to 531. I always lusted after a Columbus frame back in the ole days.

There was an article way back in Bicycling Mag, where they built a test rig and simulated riding a frame by stressing with a frequency of stress cycles, some of the real high end stuff failed early, some later, some did not fail at all. The key is not so much the material, but how the welding, or soldering joints were put togehter, without causing stress fatigue in the joints.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by WillemJM [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

There was an article way back in Bicycling Mag, where they built a test rig and simulated riding a frame by stressing with a frequency of stress cycles, some of the real high end stuff failed early, some later, some did not fail at all. The key is not so much the material, but how the welding, or soldering joints were put togehter, without causing stress fatigue in the joints.

I can see that, one needed a special license from Reynolds to build w/753. Columbus SL was .9/.6mm wall thickness which is thick by today's high end standard. Those DT bosses could easily end up on the .6 section and add a couple seasons of racing along with some questionable fabrication, and you get yourself a crack. As far as 531 those tubes could hammer nails.

WillemJM said:

There was an article way back in Bicycling Mag, where they built a test rig and simulated riding a frame by stressing with a frequency of stress cycles, some of the real high end stuff failed early, some later, some did not fail at all. The key is not so much the material, but how the welding, or soldering joints were put togehter, without causing stress fatigue in the joints.

Yup. The heat applied to joints during assembly is the key for a given tubing. An article I read--can't remember where--stated that very heat issue wasn't always handled well by some big name manufacturers.

no offense but why would anyone ride a steel frame in these days other than trying to be "retro"?

I'm not trying to steer a controversy just trying to understand

dominikk85 said:

no offense but why would anyone ride a steel frame in these days other than trying to be "retro"? I'm not trying to steer a controversy just trying to understand

For many reasons: aesthetics, having something different than so many CF frames that might look the same, durability, perceived ride quality.... There is no single best frame material. Having owned bikes that were aluminum, steel, titanium, and CF, and the differences between them all haven't been huge. I have a hard time seeing Speedvagen's as retro: I can see myself saying to a Speedvagen, "Oh you nasty little [censored], it's time for a spanking."

steel can be repaired with oxygene welding,

I agree that they do look really great. nothing looks like one of those italian steel frames.

but when it comes to performance (even if we take weight out of the equation since for most a pound or 2 more at the frame won't make a difference) like stiffness, shock absorption... are there any advantages of steel? I have not rode a steel bike since my teens when I did track racing but I have steel always associated with heavy and soft.

But I certainly don't want to create controversy here. A steel frame is a beautiful thing and for people that ride just for the joy it is certainly a viable option. I was just not understanding why one would go for steel in these days.

dominikk85 said:

but when it comes to performance (even if we take weight out of the equation since for most a pound or 2 more at the frame won't make a difference) like stiffness, shock absorption... are there any advantages of steel? I have not rode a steel bike since my teens when I did track racing but I have steel always associated with heavy and soft.

Steel has supposedly always had legendary ride feel, i.e. feeling lively when ridden and compliant over rough stuff, but I've never put much stock in that idea. Since ride quality is a subjective thing, it's hard to pin down what adds what to ride quality, but frame makers--of all materials--say it's the geometry, construction method, tubing size, and etc that affect ride quality. Also a huge factor in ride quality is simply the pressure to which the tires are inflated. Not being able to qualify ride quality based on material is why I always suggest the new riders looking for a bike not focus on the material but instead on how the bike fits and how its ride feels on a test ride. Stiffness. Stiffness on a metal bike is the result of geometry, construction method, the Young's modulus for the material, and the diameter of the tubes. So, in general larger diameter metal tubed bikes, with larger Young's moduli will be stiffer bikes than smaller tubed bikes with lower Young's moduli. That can be modified a bit by tube shaping. CF is a differ beast in terms of stiffness because direction of the fibers throughout the layup affects overall structural stiffness. So now we are seeing bikes that are, as the hackneyed magazine review and manufacturer tease line goes, vertically compliant and laterally stiff. The question becomes does that stiffness mean anything in terms of bike performance? Certainly stiffness is one component of ride quality, with stiffer bikes tending to transmit more road noise/high frequency vibrations as well having less bump absorption (all else being equal). People also associate stiffness with bikes that will be faster or that accelerate more quickly. That might make intuitive sense, but unfortunately there have been no tests done that correlate stiffness with better performance. It's rather unsettled on that point, and it's a great point to argue about. Back to steel. As vspa mentioned steel can be pretty easily repaired, no matter the construction method (lugs, brazed, or tig welded). Titanium is questionable (meaning I'm unsure) on that point (I'm not sure if embrittlement starts to become an issue). Aluminum typically can't isn't repaired, and it used to be that CF could be repaired. Now however CF is being repaired by a great many people (visit the Calfee Design CF repair page for an example). Steel is special in one regard compared to all the other materials: when it oxidizes (rusts) it is weakened, however the threat of rust has been overstated by many. Treating a steel frame on the inside with a frame saver/rust inhibitor is an easy process for owners. To see how small the rust issue is, look at the vast number of old steel bikes still around. Further there is new steel kid on the block, stainless steel for bikes, that makes rust a thing of the past. That's about all that can be said before people start throwing things at each other.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by dominikk85 [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

no offense but why would anyone ride a steel frame in these days other than trying to be "retro"?

I'm not trying to steer a controversy just trying to understand

Retro? Sure, why not. But seriously? Why would you need to ride CF unless you are trying to be a racer and need to shave every ounce of weight? The steel frames of today are not that much heavier and they are far cheaper in price. I ride a steelie and it is like driving a classic Camaro or Mustang. Whenever I am at a gathering, I inevitably get compliments and inquiries about my bike from those riding cookie cutter CF bikes. I think only the extreme cycling fanatics can really tell the difference in the ride. So, buy the bike you really love and can afford.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

For many reasons: aesthetics, having something different than so many CF frames that might look the same, durability, perceived ride quality.... There is no single best frame material. Having owned bikes that were aluminum, steel, titanium, and CF, and the differences between them all haven't been huge.
I have a hard time seeing Speedvagen's as retro:

I can see myself saying to a Speedvagen, "Oh you nasty little [censored], it's time for a spanking."

Thats a beaut!

I love my steel framed jim merz allez. but there is more to the ride than just the frame material. Tires make a huge difference, as well as a good set of bars. I got the specialized turbo pro for the front very recently, holy wow the ride got better. like by a huge amount. This is the 25 though becuase I am 270.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by David Gerchman [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I love my steel framed jim merz allez. but there is more to the ride than just the frame material. Tires make a huge difference, as well as a good set of bars. I got the specialized turbo pro for the front very recently, holy wow the ride got better. like by a huge amount. This is the 25 though becuase I am 270.

Tires can really change the whole personality of the bike for better or worse. I am surprised when I hear folks quibbling over a few $$ of rubber who ride superbikes costing thousands,

Btw at 270 I think you have a little leeway on width. I am around 165lbs and ride 25's.

danfoz said:

Tires can really change the whole personality of the bike for better or worse. I am surprised when I hear folks quibbling over a few $$ of rubber who ride superbikes costing thousands, Btw at 270 I think you have a little leeway on width. I am around 165lbs and ride 25's.

As can inflation pressure and tire width. Tires do make for comparatively cheap upgrades.

Man what do you ride at 35 psi?