Steel Framed Bikes

One thing I noticed from my end of year stats was average speeds of my steel bike and the more recent aluminium..

All of 2014 on a Condor Fratello steel, trevved up a bit to shed weight and made into something it wasn't really designed for - a race bike

6,200 miles at an average of 18.4 mph

First ride on the CAAD 10 (with all the components stripped of the condor + same wheels) was Jan 1st 2015.Pretty similar year rides wise..

6,150 miles at an average of 18.8

Thats not a great deal of difference between what is essentially an audax, light tourer/commuter with a high headtube n maybe 8.6kg and a well regarded Ali race bike at almost a kg less.

I got hold of a new Canyon Aeroad in November, not ridden it so much but it's definitely faster, I'll be able to see by how much this time next year. Obvs 3 very different bikes but...

"However aluminium does not have a well-defined elastic limit and is consequently subject to creep and fatigue. So to combat this, aluminium frames are made stiffer and heavier than necessary. So +1 to steel."

Ther materials bit is true, but in practice it's not the case that alu bikes need to made stiffer and heavier, or harsher, than is necessary to make a safe and reasonably durable frame. There are plenty of examples of 'suprisingly' comfy Al frames. The suprise part is simply from comparisons to overly thick-walled tubes, hydroformed tubes with nice looks but compromised designs as far as ride feel is concerned or just overly oversized tube frames, rather than any current magic going on with Al frames. 

It's possible to build a light Al frame that has comfortable levels of flex and litle to no 'harshness' that also passes ISO tests (as one example) for fatigue resistance, impacts etc, without fatigue cracking issues in normal ownership spans. If I want 7-10 years from a regularly-ridden bike I'd go for steel and spend more on something that I'd like to own for that sort of period but it's a highly emotive and subjective decision and there's no reason that a well-designed Al frame can't offer that sort of service life for many riders. Al frames can cost under £400 with a carbon fork and ride really well, offering great vfm.

These days the difference between many steel and Al road bikes is well within the same comfort difference range as tyre or saddle/post choices, or fit. 

Okay, a bit of materials science. The most important property for a bike frame material is specific stiffness, i.e. the stiffness divided by the density. This needs to be as large as possible. So, ignoring exotic materials, in equal third (roughtly) come steel, aluminium and titanium.  There isn't much between them. Second is carbon fibre, and in first place the ultimate structural material - beryllium. The only reason you don't see beryllium bikes is its extreme toxicity - you really don't want to drop dead before the finishing line.

Next comes the structure. Aluminium is much less dense than steel, to can be made into larger diameter tubes which are intrinsically stiffer for the same weight.. In principle steel tubes can be oversized, but the wall thickness becomes so small that it is susceptible to buckling. Also aluminium is much easier to form, so you aren't limited to circular tubes. So +1 to aluminium.

However aluminium does not have a well-defined elastic limit and is consequently subject to creep and fatigue. So to combat this, aluminium frames are made stiffer and heavier than necessary. So +1 to steel.

So there isn't a clear winner based on the science. But there is undoubtedly a difference, and I just prefer the way steel rides.

Well, I suppose beauty is the eye of the beholder. Personally it looks better than a 1" steerer which is what many associate with steel frames.

"Even if it was the frame flexing which presumably is bad for ultimate performance, it was a response that I really enjoyed."

Enjoyable, yes very, for some. Bad for performance, not really, that's mainly myth. Stiff frames are have a more immediate response to input (ie like light wheels) that works well with the positive feedback loop of 'feels fast - add input - goes fast - feels fast' of most performance bikes. But unless you're a genuine sprinter little energy is wasted in frame flex if it's an averagely springy frame, the power is just delivered in a less immediate way. It's a feeling of working with the bike as you accelerate rather than it being so stiff it's almost uninvolving, perhaps. So for a strong, aggressive sprinter the springy bike may not respond so well, but that's mostly about ergonomics not the frame itself being inefficient and sucking up watts somehow. Hinault and the sprinters of his era did ok on skinny steel. 

I don't like very flexy frames much from a handling point of view but I can be happy enough pedalling them. A  bit of feel under pressure is what gives a bike some 'feel' imo and both steel and Al bikes can have it. It's simply flex in the right place that is at a level that woks with your power,  weight, preferences etc. ie my springy may be your whippy/dead-feeling frame depending on how you ride. 

Material clearly has a bearing, but geometry & construction has a huge impact.  I chose a Ti Van Nicholas over a carbon cannondale synapse.  The carbon bike felt just a touch more responsive but the Ti bike a spot smoother and more resilient.  Now my son's aluminium CAAD10 goes like the proverbial scolded cat but has a bearable ride, far more so than my old aluminium bike.  I'd always choose on the basis of a brutally honest assessment of your current usage, with a small nod to future improvements in your own ability.  Next time round, I'd look at both steel or aluminium again.

I think the appeal of steel is a little nostalgia and a lot of aesthetics.

For a fast riding, efficient road bike it wouldnt necessarily be your first choice for low weight, stiffness or even durability for a given budget. Other materials can be made to excel in one or more of these areas more cheaply than steel can

But it has an aesthetic and sometimes a retro appeal as well as ride quality which means it will always have a following.

*sighs*

Titanium

Obvs

So many myths and opinions, here is another.

The material does not define the frame. People love to compare near vintage steel or alloy from the early 2000's and apply those "benchmarks" to modern bicycle frames. 

A CAAD12 is made of aluminium, so is a Bianchi EV3 from say 2004 . Are they the same or comparable? Unlikely. 

I have a modrn steel frame - Columbus Spirit, oversized tubes, very aggressive geo,Tapered headtube etc. It rides lovely, but its pretty and the geometry works for me. I also have a bunch of carbon frames spanning the last 12 years, and An alloy bike from 2009/10, and a new alloy frame on order.

Each is different,  but definitely not only because of the material.

to finally answer your question - which steel frame do you want to compare your Felt to?

Wouldn't say "as of late", the resurgence already took place. In fact, as evidenced by Genesis offering carbon frames for their team riders last year, it seems like we hit the counter-revolutionary phase a while ago.

In that vein, I personally can't tell the difference between an alloy and steel frame without looking. The hits don't feel any softer. Nicer looking, though, IMHO. As always, YMMV.

My MTB hardtail has a steel frame and tbh I noticed a huge difference from the near identical alu frame that it replaced. You pretty much just bounce along the trails, it absorbs and gives like crazy and I love it!  I will never ever be concerned about being a weight weenie again, it stuck an extra kg on the weight of the bike but I swear I go quicker!

My road (gravel) bike has a titanium frame and this is certainly a lot less harsh than the alu frame also.  

Aesthetically I think it's easier to build an ugly bike out of carbon fibre or aluminium but it's perfectly possible to build a good looking one out of any of the three.

Yes, steel bikes may be considered old fashioned looking but as Senser said "fashion is something so ugly it has to be changed every fifteen minutes"

I doubt I'll ever buy a bike not made of metal. I like the idea of craftsmanship associated with steel. I'm quite sure a good ALU or carbon frame would ride just as well though.

I've got all three. The ride on a steel bike is creamy smooth. It feels alive. The aluminium bike is brutally stiff and efficient, with the ride damped by the carbon fork and carbon seatpost. The carbon bike has a lovely smooth ride, but feels a bit damp, rather than alive, though if you give it loads of welly it comes alive like the aluminium bike.

So I'd probably recommend the steel bike for pootling and longer rides, the aluminium bike for quick blasts, and the carbon bike for longer fast rides.

Aluminium is nasty stuff.  Its production requires truly enormous amounts of energy and at the end of the process you are left with an inherently weak material.  The only way to make the tubing strong enough for a bike is to have those typically huge cross-sections.  And then, because of its comparative frailty, it breaks easily and is prone to fatigue.  Better manufacturers, such as Cannondale, heat treat their frames to improve the strength, but there is a limit to what they can achieve.

Less important, but still relevant, are it's tendency to amplify road noise and, although it doesn't rust, to corrode in a cloud of spooky white dust.

Of course, it is lighter than steel and that may be important to you.  Especially if you are one of those people who are convinced that 1kg makes all the difference to your bike but conveniently forget you weigh 70kg.

Steel isn't perfect either.  It is heavier, although it can be surprisingly light if you spend a little more.  It rusts, but not much and then only slowly.  And, it must be said, it is a material associated with the previous century.  That last point weighs heavily on the mnds of mny people, particularly those who write without using vowels.

Happy Christmas choosing.

Although I cannot comment on a comparison of a steel frame to your Felt aluminium, because I have not ridden your bike, I can tell you from experience why I liked my steel frame.

1. Steel frames can be surprisingly light. My Sintesi from the late 1990s with a Dura Ace 9spd groupset, carbon fork and Mavic Ksyriums was well under 8Kg.

2. When riding it and putting a sprint or some extra effort in I always got the feeling that the frame was storing some of that energy and then releasing it to boost the acceleration. I'm sure this makes no sense to anyone who knows anything about frame design, it was just a feeling, a lively response to input rather than putting energy into an inert lump of metal. Even if it was the frame flexing which presumably is bad for ultimate performance, it was a response that I really enjoyed. I have never had this same feedback from aluminium bikes which I have tried. I always feel aluminium, though perfectly acceptable, has a somewhat harsh but dull ride quality in comparison.

3. I believe that steel frames can take more abuse and are more repairable. I might be wrong.

4. I now run a carbon frame, it's very nice, light, stiff where it needs to be and springy where it needs to be. It is faster overall and far more comfortable but doesn't climb as well.

5. How relevant a frame from the 1990s is to modern steel is another question...

HTH

M