[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: AbsolutelyFree1060.jpg (216 KB, 1060x704)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
If steel is so great, why do all the cost-no-object high end steel frame builders put carbon forks on their bikes?
>>
>>1854852
different materials have different properties which makes them best at different applications
>>
>>1854852
because cons00mertards ask for them.
>>
my boomer neighbor actually has a pegoretti, one of the last ones before Dario died.
he prefers it to his carbon LOOK

says it rides comfier
>>
File: Allez.jpg (233 KB, 2560x1619)
233 KB
233 KB JPG
>>1854852
you could say the same thing about aluminium, no?
>>
File: DSC06705-1024x684.jpg (87 KB, 1024x684)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>1854852
because
>cost-no-object
and carbon forks are more expensive than steel ones
that being said, plenty of high end steel frames come with steel forks
>>
File: chapman.jpg (220 KB, 1080x1080)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
>>
>>1854852
>If steel is so great
It's not, the only people who believe this are poors who can't afford carbon and/or stubborn boomers who hate anything new
>>
>>1854887
>because
>>cost-no-object
>and carbon forks are more expensive than steel ones
Then why make the frame out of steel?
>>
>>1854941
>It's not, the only people who believe this are poors who can't afford carbon and/or stubborn boomers who hate anything new
and the chunky bros. I choose a steel frame because I am a fat fuck and wanted something stronger. Weights not important if you are already lugging 80 extra pounds on your belly.
>>
aluminum is the best frame material
steel is best fork
simple as
>>
>>1854941
>poors who can't afford carbon
Poor roadies who can't afford carbon go for aluminium.

Steelfags are mostly talking about beaters, commuters or touring bikes.
The main draw is that it's more reliable and fails in a nicer way.
It's pretty disingenuous to pretend to center the discussion of steelfagging around race bikes. I bet that's not what you even meant either or a line you'd stay in.
>>
>>1854972
kys, simple as
>>
>>1854855
This.

In truth the best forks you can get are well designed titanium, emphasis on well designed and of course well made. Carbon is the lightest so it might persuade consoomertard weaklings and fat bastads to try superior steel frames.
>>
>>1854972
Aluminium has no fatigue limit. Once you start riding an alu frame, itsq lifespan starts tickling down.

Steel has virtually an infinite lifespan.
>>
>>1854980
Titanium isn't very good for feel or even weight because of the specific requirements of bicycle forks. It’s ok for corrosion resistance but the inevitable cracks in the welds make this a bit moot and pointless. Titanium is one of the worst fork materials and a middling frame material. It’s purely for aesthetic and memes.
>>
>>1854980
Titanium can't even be butted, what are you talking about
>>
when steel is real but you have alloy stem, handle bars, seat post, cranks, wheel rims
>>
>>1854980
most titanium bikes come with a carbon fork.
>>
To try to make it easier for emaciated cycling enthusiasts to ride them
>>
>>1854852
That's a good question. I got a Gunnar Roadie and chose a steel fork, I really like it. I did not like the carbon fork on the CAAD12 I used to own.
>>
OH NONONONONNO STEELBROS, HOW COULD CALVIN TALK THIS WAY ABOUT US??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SOBg_aJk2A
>>
File: 1646315692674.jpg (935 KB, 1000x668)
935 KB
935 KB JPG
>>1854981
>Steel has virtually an infinite lifespan.
>>
>>1855012
I don't get it, he's just talking about a really old Raleigh town bike.
>>
>>1855015
If it's not subject to factors like corrosion, then yes
>>
>>1854972
But how come?
>>
File: fatiguetest.png (65 KB, 732x664)
65 KB
65 KB PNG
>>1855020
>>
>>1855024
Not the anon you're replying to but I don't see the value in posting results from a study performed in 1997. People who live in reality know that their frame, regardless of material, will eventually fail. Will that failure be sudden and catastrophic? Will it be slow and inconsequential (besides requiring repair or a new frame altogether)? Who knows. You can beat your chest with information and anecdotes you've read on the internet until the heat death of the universe, but that doesn't change anything. Get out there and ride and break some frames, arguing about what's best on /n/ isn't going to make you any stronger.
>>
>>1855015
You don't seem to understand.

Under a certain threshold, steel doesn't experience fatigue, So, if you use it and conserve it properly, your 120 years old steel frame will be the same.

This is DEFINITELY not the case for aluminum. You can use it and conserve it properly, IT WILL NOT LAST.
I'm sorry, but your (and mine too), aluminum frame is going to last a certain amount of cycles. And it is not an hypothetical number, it's a very real number, measurable in a few years of usage, provided NOTHING bad happens to your frame.

There is plenty of people with aluminum frame bike, who, after 4, 5, 6 years, discover cracks on their stays, and they have no idea how it happened, they think it's a manufacturing defect. But no, it's simply that they have run out of stress loading cycles for their alu frame.
>>
>>1854985
Every single thing you said is wrong
>>
>>1855025
It's just a fatigue test bro, relax. Shows that steel doesn't last forever even in lab environment.
>>
>>1855029
Nothing lasts forever is exactly what I said. I’m not the one saying steel or any other material lasts forever. Maybe if you don’t ride your bike it will last a long time, but that’s a different conversation for another time.
>>
>>1855031
you should probably be telling this to >>1855027, not me
>>
>>1854981
can somebody explain this in more detail? it's hard to imagine my cannondale frame not outliving me by a long time. it's like the sturdiest thing i own.
>>
>>1855024
90 strokes per minutes are 5400 strokes in 1 hour.
So, 200'000 cycles are 37 hours of pedaling.


If you pedal standing up 2 minutes every day, its 730 minutes a year. Which is 12 hours a year.

Which means 200.000 cycles will be completed in 3 years. MINUS all the other stresses.

This is not reassuring. And is compatible with my experience.

So, the best frame is probably NON super lightweight toring steel frame.
>>
>>1854852
>cost-no-object high end steel frame
Steel is heavy; it's 8.8g/cm3
>>
Weight weenieing
>>
>>1854964
Steel frame + steel forks
Lasts longer, carbon fails before steel.
Forks are stronger, so good for touring
Steel can take larger disc rotors if that's a concern

I have bikes with both carbon and steel, 'ride comfort' is negligible between them, comfort comes from tire size and pressure, carbon forks are designed to be stiff, so flex between the two types is negligibe.

Carbon is good for road bikes because it's significantly lighter, that's the only advantage.
>>
>>1856798
>carbon forks are designed to be stiff
the straight blade, disc brake ones are. my norco valence has a curved blade rim brake carbon fork and it's really comfortable. soaks up all road buzz.
>>
>>1854852
carbon is a meme material.
It has no durability. It's shit.
>>
>>1854852
The best forks have already been made, and they were steel: the colnago precisa, and the Columbus max.
>>
>>1855074
>my cannondale frame
>. it's like the sturdiest thing i own.
lol
>>
>>1858483
> straight blade
it's shit
>>
>>1855074
It's a meme. The people that buy steel frames will anyways put an alloy stem, seatpost and handlebars on it, not to mention alloy wheels that probably cost more than the frame. I would rather have my frame crack because of "fatigue" than my seatpost or cockpit.

"roadbuzz" or whatever is another one.
>>
>>1855074
>can somebody explain this in more detail? it's hard to imagine my cannondale frame not outliving me by a long time. it's like the sturdiest thing i own.

Aluminum gets more brittle over time. Steel oxidizes (rusts). Both can cause frame failure. Your C-dale will sit perfectly in your garage and if you take it out for rides work great. But if it's 2042 and you huck it off of a ramp and land hard on the frame it is of greater chance to snap than when it was new. In reality the degradation was small and the meme about aluminum snapping was in the 90s before they had perfected the perfect balance between thick ass tubes that weigh too much and thin tubes that take you to snap city.
>>
>>1858597
Are you suggesting steel rims?
>>
>>1855081
I don't know the specifics in for that test, but generally you will test at increased loads to induce failure- so it's not indicative of real world use.
>>
>>1854852
because the fucking fat dentists wont buy a bike that doesnt have carbon in it
diamonds are made of carbon goy you wouldnt understand
>>
>>1854852
>chromolly
>aluminium
which bedder
>>
>>1858597
i have a saddle with carbon fiber rails on my steel bike seethe about it
>>
File: S-N_curves.png (84 KB, 561x364)
84 KB
84 KB PNG
>>1854852
Because some people want lower weight over reliability.
>>1855074
It means that steel has a fatigue limit, and aluminium doesn't. Even slight loads will cause material to fail.
What does it mean for your bike frame? Probably nothing, if it was designed right.
>>1855027
That is what I'd call a shit design. I've been dicking more around with e-scoots than bicycles, and I've seen some aluminium frames survive rental abuse, while others fail for no apparent reason.

In either case, you go to dude with AC TIG welder, give him money and he fixes your crack, but if it cracked in one place, chances it will crack in other, so dunno.
>>
>>1858664
It's gona break one day while you going over a pot hole and leave a big carbon splinter in your but.
>>
>>1854981
This is true but practically infinite for any normal rider. I'd only think about it for a lightweight alu MTb I abuse. Definitely not a road bike.

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/frame_fatigue_test.htm
>>
File: portofino.jpg (283 KB, 1536x1024)
283 KB
283 KB JPG
>>1854852
>why do all the cost-no-object high end steel frame builders put carbon forks on their bikes?
How about no, they don't do that. pic very related
>>
File: stelbel.jpg (115 KB, 750x750)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>1858907
>pic very realted
>>
File: steeltardsBTFO.jpg (375 KB, 2054x1274)
375 KB
375 KB JPG
>>1858907
>>1858908
Next level tongue in cheekposting
>>
>>1855027
This is bullshit.
Steel does fatigue.
Had a guy i know rode a trek cross country bike pretty regular for a good 17-18 years. Had the steel (Cromaly) fork disolve on him going down a hill one day, got fucked up. It wasn't even rusted it just gave out, so that right there proves that steel doesn't fatigue. It was a little rinky dink road fork, not made well at all. the guy who rode it was light tho too. This is why i ride mtb no matter what. It's just a much beefier setup.Trek ended up giving him a new $2000 bike.
>>
>>1855027
>You can use it and conserve it properly, IT WILL NOT LAST.
Yes it will. It will last for some 10-20 years at least. It won't last for 100 years, but you'll be dead by then.
>>
>>1855027
Ive ridden a AL frame mtb from 2005 since 2011.
I've put at least 6000 miles on this one frame.
all upgraded components. It's ready for 100k more. Ride it until it breaks. There is some wear around the bottom bracket from where ive chain slipped, but not enough for me to care and i'll just paint over it occasionally. 6061 FTW
>>
>>1858960
6000 miles, wow. That's like a years worth of riding.
>>
>>1858990
My dad works for nintendo
>>
Honestly OP, be steel is real is a meme.

I've got two steel bikes but they also just happen to be old and cheaply acquired.

Frame materials are designed by engineers with a number of priorities in mind like aerodynamics, weight, stiffness, durability, projected cost, and how much time they have to actually design the bike. They pick materials based on compromises of these and probably way more factors. You need a cheap lightish bike? Aluminium, maybe hydroformed, maybe just tubes. Money is no object? Take your pick, really. Cheap over everything else? Straight gauge high ten steel.

So why does a steel bike get a carbon fork sometimes? Because it was in the budget; and they could get certain performance, weight, and aerodynamics out of it.

Barring manufacturing defects, any material can be designed to make a bike last long enough... "Enough" depending on the person - I've got a couple of old steel mtbs that I got for cheap - one of them is 34 years old, the other one might be like 10 or 15. I'm sure a decent aluminum or carbon bike if well cared for could last that long.
>>
>>1854852
Forks take about half the effort as a frame to build. Using off the shelf forks means you can make more frames, which people are willing to pay big premiums for.
>>
>>1859077
this
>>
>>1858659
Last fat dentist I saw riding around being a fred was riding a aModoMio which if I'm not mistaken is steel but hey what do I know I'm just a dumb tripfag
>>
>>1854887
Man, straight lace wheels are fucking tits.
>>
>>1854985
Wew...that's quite a profound post anon. Nothing you said is accurate. Your last sentence is pure conjecture and irrelevant. The modulus of elasticity between metals (and garbon) is directly correlated to the feel of a given bike frame. The materials resonate differently too. Aside from specific alloys (and garbon) how these materials (tubes) are jointed/bonded and the frame geometry, tube thickness and how competent the builder is also reflects the feel.

To say that titanium isn't very good is a pretty tall reach, because many many more than you, professionals, in the industry state otherwise. You can take a fork with the same measurements and dimensions and titanium will be about 35 to 40% lighter than a steel fork. There are plenty of examples out there for comparison, but also simply the specific density of each alloy is pretty obvious.

>>1854997
Anon, builders are double-butting titanium tubes and have been for a while.
>>
>>1862407
Proof? I think you're just making shit up.
>>
>>1862443
First you say everyone on a nice bike is fat and out of shape. So I post something agreeing with you but with a trivial detail that doesn't align, and now you're wanting proof? If I posted without my trip would you be more inclined to agree? Ok no trip here: I saw a fat man on a nice bike that happened to be steel, happy now?
>>
>>1862447
I'm not going to trust someone on an anonymous imageboard without proof, you should start taking pictures to support your statements if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>>
>>1862452
If I said I saw a poor NEET on a rigid MTB with slicks you wouldn't have questioned it, so what part is too outlandish to be believable? The fat part? The steel part? Or the expensive part?
>>
>>1862454
>>1862452
Actually I think I figured it out, it was the dentist part right? In fairness I did make that up, I have no reason to think he had a DDS or was even in a dentistry-adjacent profession. He was just an overweight white guy (male) who looked to be in his 60s, on a blue serotta oops ha ha sorry QBP I mean "amodomio", fully fredded out in a POC helmet, assos jersey, and 100% glasses, going slower than the slowest unracer and looking like he was enjoying himself very much, as I would expect anyone in his position to be doing, because nice things are nice and making unracers topple over as they struggle to be the slowest person on two wheels is funny. Sorry for the doublepost.
>>
I think it's time to grow up buddy, look at what you're doing
>>
>>1858955
>Trek ended up giving him a new $2000 bike.

Worth it even after loose a few facial features.
>>
>>1854855
/thread
>>
>>1862454
>>1862468
r u ok bro
>>
>>1854852
Love me steel, don't mind a little aluminum sometimes, hate carbon. Simple as
>>
>>1854964
You could make a bike out of a gold alloy and it would be more expensive than any of the cost-no-object bikes you are thinking of, I would still buy a steel one over it.
>>
File: pitts-special[1].jpg (205 KB, 1280x699)
205 KB
205 KB JPG
>>1856779

Basically, this.

Steel bends out of shape before it breaks. Steel is very stiff, it's easy to work with, and it's been around for fucking ever.

A carbon fiber part has properties based on which way the fibers are arranged. it's not just a bunch of tiny identical subunits like metal.

In aviation there's a cult of fucking morons that worship these steel wire biplanes, because they bought them in the 80s and they can't afford composites.

The fact is that steel is easy to work with, easy to weld, it's almost like the free software of materials, even though that's absolutely not true, once you get dementia your brain turns to stone and you can't learn how to do anything new, so you just stick to what you know.

Also, dentists have a lot more money than you, so most carbon fiber forks are designed to be light and not have 3x excess strength, whereas is mandatory with steel (because it bends at 1x).
>>
>>1855027
damm i thought i was set for life after buying a 500 buck alu bike with carbon fork
>>
>>1854852
i have no idea why they do this shit. i have a nice modern steel frame and the first thing i did was get a nice steel fork from another company and put that plastic fork in teh closet where it belongs. no one who recognizes the superior properties of steel wants plastic shit to begin with.
>>
>>1854869
absolutely not. aluminum forks and harsh as fuck. they're hard to find too, i actually want an aluminum fork for the velodrome, but where are they?
>>
>>1863974
>aluminum forks and harsh as fuck
People say this but iunno.
There's an aluminium road fork on my Concorde (annoyingly).
It actually visibly flexes quite a lot, like a supple steel one would. It's quite disconcerting. The ride isn't plush but it's not awful.

it's quite light (610g).
>>
File: p4pb19774695.jpg (392 KB, 800x600)
392 KB
392 KB JPG
>>1864003
It's just a meme like fatigue limits etc. Alu frames are objectively great due to their solid construction, low maintenance and low weight, but they are not so trendy right now because people are bored of them.

I've great faith that late zoomers will revive the millenium-MTB, especially these dirt bikes are so cool, they were a must have when I was a kid. Too bad my boomer dad me got me a Kona Fire Mountain because it was a "real bike", and now my brain is hardwired to 90s MTB's.
>>
>>1858990
post your strava fred let's see how much you ride
>>
>>1854852
Real talk, because making steel forks is a lot more work than carbon forks. A bike frame is pretty straight forward to make, just some steel tubing and some welding. the forks on the other hand requires bending and shaping and welding.

As opposed to carbon forks which are just made with a mold and some epoxy.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.